Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Harris v. Lazaroff

September 11, 2006

MASON HARRIS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MR. ALAN LAZAROFF, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Holschuh

ORDER

This prisoner civil rights case was filed by Mason Harris, an inmate confined at the Lebanon Correctional Institution. The Court previously granted Mr. Harris leave to proceed in forma pauperis by way of an order which assessed a partial filing fee and directed periodic payments of the balance of the filing fee.

It has since come to this Court's attention that, on at least three prior occasions, Mr. Harris has had a complaint dismissed for failure to state a claim. See Harris v. Jennings, 1988 WL 45340 (6th Cir. May 10, 1988) (affirming the dismissal of a complaint filed by Mr. Harris for failure to state a claim); Case No. 1:90-cv-119 (dismissed on May 13, 1991 for failure to state a claim); Case No. 1:89-cv-564 (dismissed on August 27, 1991 for failure to state a claim).

28 U.S.C. §1915(g), adopted as part of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, provides that if a prisoner litigant has, on three or more prior occasions, had a case dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim, the prisoner is not entitled to proceed under 28 U.S.C. §1915, which permits the filing of actions in forma pauperis. Section 1915(g) applies to dismissals which occurred prior to the effective date of the PLRA. Wilson v. Yaklich, 148 F.3d 596 (6th Cir. 1998). Since Mr. Harris is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court's prior order granting him leave to do so is revoked. He is assessed the full filing fee applicable to his case as of October 13, 2005, although he is to be given credit for any amounts paid to date. If he fails to pay the balance of the filing fee, which is currently $231.25, within 30 days of the date of this order, this case will be dismissed.

In light of this order, the Court denies Mr. Harris' motions to transport him to the District Court for a scheduling conference and for a scheduling conference (##4 and 5).

Any party may, within ten (10) days after this Order is filed, file and serve on the opposing party a motion for reconsideration by a District Judge. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A), Rule 72(a), Fed. R. Civ. P.; Eastern Division Order No. 91-3, pt. I., F., 5. The motion must specifically designate the order or part in question and the basis for any objection. Responses to objections are due ten days after objections are filed and replies by the objecting party are due seven days thereafter. The District Judge, upon consideration of the motion, shall set aside any part of this Order found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

This order is in full force and effect, notwithstanding the filing of any objections, unless stayed by the Magistrate Judge or District Judge. S.D. Ohio L.R. 72.4.

Terence P. Kemp United States Magistrate Judge

20060911

© 1992-2006 VersusLaw ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.