Williams v. United States Marshals Services et al, No. 3:2015cv00581 - Document 4 (E.D. Va. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. See Opinion for details. Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 12/30/2015. Copy mailed to Plaintiff.(ccol, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Williams v. United States Marshals Services et al Doc. 4 P • IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division DEC 30 2015 !1 Ct6RK, U.S. I'tSTnifT nni la-i RONALD EDWARD WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, V. Civil Action No. 3:15CV581 UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE, etal.. Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff, a Mississippi inmate, submitted this action and requested leaveto proceed in formapauperis. The pertinentstatute provides: In no event shall a prisonerbring a civil action [informa pauperis] if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiffhas at least three other actions or appeals that have been dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim. See Williams v. United States, No. 5:13-CV-422 (NAM/DEP), 2014 WL991839, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 13,2014)(citing cases). Plaintiffs current pleading does not suggest thatPlaintiff is in imminent danger of serious physical harm. By Memorandum Order entered on November 4,2015, this Court denied Plaintiff's requestto proceed informa pauperis and ordered him to submitthe frill filing fee withineleven (11) days of the dateof entry thereof Plaintiff failed to respond to the November 4,2015 Memorandum Order. Accordingly, this action will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. See Fed, R. Civ. P. 41(b). An appropriate Order shall issue. Date: her ^ n 7(115 M. Hannah Lau United States Districi Judge Richmond, Virginia Dockets.Justia.com
]]>
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.
