Martin v. Welch, et al., No. 3:2010cv01826 - Document 5 (N.D. Ohio 2010)

Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order This action is dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiffs related Motions to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, for Appointment of Counsel, and to Waive Required Copies are denied as moot (Doc. Nos. 2, 3, 4). This Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Judge Jack Zouhary on 11/10/2010. (C,D)

Download PDF
Martin v. Welch, et al. Doc. 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION Robert Martin, Case No. 3:10 CV 1826 Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER -vsJUDGE JACK ZOUHARY Warden Welch, et al., Defendants. On August 18, 2010, pro se Plaintiff Robert Martin, an inmate at the Toledo Correctional Institution (TCI), filed this in forma pauperis civil rights action against TCI Warden Welch and nine other Defendants (Doc. No. 1). The Complaint alleges Defendants have conspired to retaliate against him for filing grievances concerning medical treatment. He asserts this conspiracy has chilled his First Amendment rights and caused him pain and suffering. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), an inmate is prohibited from bringing a civil action in forma pauperis if, on three or more prior occasions, the inmate has brought an action that was dismissed on the ground that it was frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim. Plaintiff has filed a civil action that failed to state a claim on at least six prior occasions. See Martin v. Hawkins (N.D. Ohio 04 CV 2387); Martin v. Lowery (S.D. Ohio 04 CV 704); Martin v. Lowery (S.D. Ohio 04 CV 641); Martin v. Ohio Supreme Court (S.D. Ohio 04 CV 613); Martin v. Wayne Cnty. Nat’l BankTrust & Inv. (N.D. Ohio 03 CV 1211); and, Martin v. Coval (S.D. Ohio 99 CV 703). Further, the Complaint does not contain allegations which reasonably suggest imminent danger of serious physical injury. Thus, Martin may not proceed in forma pauperis, and this case is Dockets.Justia.com appropriate for dismissal. Rittner v. Kinder, 2008 WL 3889860 (6th Cir. 2008) (citing Ciarpaglini v. Saini, 352 F.3d 328, 330-31 (7th Cir. 2003)). Accordingly, this action is dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff’s related Motions to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, for Appointment of Counsel, and to Waive Required Copies are denied as moot (Doc. Nos. 2, 3, 4). This Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Jack Zouhary JACK ZOUHARY U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE November 10, 2010 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.