Franklin v. Person

Docket 7:25-cv-00784

Filed
2025-10-30
Terminated
Not recorded
Case type
cv

Outcome

other dismissal

FJC civil IDB DISTRICT=23 OFFICE=7 DOCKET=2500784 FILEDATE=10/30/2025 DISP=14, PROCPROG=2, JUDGMENT=0; codebook: https://www.fjc.gov/sites/default/files/idb/codebooks/Civil%20Codebook%201988%20Forward%2010252023.pdf

Outcome source

Parties and representation

      Party and firm records are not available for this case.

      Panel

        No sourced panel votes are recorded.

        Opinions and documents

        CLERK'S OFFICE U.S. DIST. CC AT HARRISONBURG, VA FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT January 26, 2026 POR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ROANOKE DIVISION LAURA A. AUSTIN, CLEI BY: s/J.Vasquez SAUNDERS FRANKLIN, ) DEPUTY CLERK ) Plaintiff, ) Case No. 7:25-cv-00784 } v. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION } R.J. PERSON, ) By: | Hon. Thomas T. Cullen ) United States District Judge Defendant. ) Plaintiff Saunders Franklin, proceeding pro se, filed this civil-rights action under 28 U.S.C. § 1983. (See generally Compl. [ECP No. 1].) Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee before filing his complaint and is instead seeking leave to proceed with this action im forma pauperis. (See zd.; Prisoner Trust Account Report [ECF No. 2].) Under the “three-strikes” provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, a prisoner who has already had three cases dismissed as frivolous or malicious or for failure to state a claim cannot file a civil action without prepaying the filing fee “unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The imminent-danger exception “is triggered only if the incarcerated person alleges sufficient and specific facts establishing that he or she is in imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time of filing.” Hall v. United States, 44 F.4th 218, 224 (4th Cir. 2022) (“The plain reading of the statute requires that the ‘imminent danger’ exist contemporaneously when the action is filed.”). Upon finding that Plaintiff had not shown imminent danger under § 1915(g), the court denied Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis and ordered him to pay the full filing fee. (See Order, Dec. 8, 2025 [ECF No. 4]) The court cautioned Plaintiff that failure to pay the fee in full or otherwise respond to the court’s order within 30 days would result in the immediate dismissal of this action without prejudice. (Id.) More than 30 days have since passed, and Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee has ordered. The court will therefore dismiss this action for failure to comply with the court’s order and failure to pay the filing fee. The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Memorandum Opinion and the accompanying order to Plaintiff. ENTERED this 26th day of January, 2026. /s/ Thomas T. Cullen HON. THOMAS T. CULLEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

        Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.