Fort v. Fort

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Shawnathan Delrea Fort, Case No. 3:24-cv-1921 Plaintiff v. ORDER OF DISMISSAL Shawnathan Delrea Fort, Defendant Pro se plaintiff Shawnathan Delrea Fort, a prisoner currently incarcerated in the Toledo Correctional Institution, filed this civil rights action against himself. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff states that he seeks a “common law name change … that’s congruent with his pen name.” (Id.). He seeks to prohibit “compan[ies]” from using his common law name. (Id. at PgID. 5). In his civil cover sheet filed with the complaint, Plaintiff demands $3,000,000,000. (Doc. No. 1-1). Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee. Rather, he filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. No.2). I previously banned Plaintiff from proceeding in forma pauperis under the three strikes rule in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Fort v. Parter, et al., No. 3:24-cv-124, 2024 WL 810560 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 27, 2024) (Carr, J.) (denying IFP and dismissing the case under Section 1915(g)). Section 1915(g) prohibits a prisoner from bringing a civil action or appealing a judgment in a civil action in forma 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). Nothing in his present complaint suggests that Plaintiff is in “imminent danger of serious physical injury” that would permit Plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis in this case under the exception outlined in the three strikes rule of Section 1915(g). Accordingly, I deny Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2), and I dismiss this action without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and my order entered in Fort, supra, 2024 WL 810560. When a district court dismisses a complaint under the three-strikes rule, it should do so without prejudice because it has “no authority to consider the merits of the complaint.” See Shabazz v. Campbell, 12 Fed. App’x 329, 330 (6th Cir. 2001). If Plaintiff wishes to pursue this action, he must pay the full $405.00 filing fee and file a motion to re-open the case within 30 days of the date of this order. Plaintiff is cautioned that if he continues to file patently frivolous actions, I will permanently enjoin him from filing new actions without first seeking and obtaining my leave. It is, therefore, ORDERED THAT: (1) Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) be, and the same hereby is, denied; (2) Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. No. 1) be, and the same hereby is, dismissed without prejudice; (3) Plaintiff shall have until December 14, 2024, to pay the $405.00 filing fee and file a motion to re-open the case; (4) The Clerk’s Office is directed not to accept a motion to re-open or any other document for filing in this case unless and until the full filing fee is paid; and (5) I hereby certify, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal taken in forma pauperis from this decision could not be taken in good faith. SO ORDERED. Date: 11/15/2024 /s/James G. Carr Sr. U.S. District Judge