Bishop v. United States

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 23-784C (Filed: June 8, 2023) ) LEMYRON BISHOP, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) THE UNITED STATES, ) ) Defendant. ) ) ORDER On May 30, 2023, Plaintiff, LeMyron Bishop, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint against Defendant, the United States, in this Court. ECF No. 1. That same day, Mr. Bishop filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). ECF No. 2. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a plaintiff may not proceed IFP if: the [plaintiff] 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 [plaintiff] is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); see Asemani v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 797 F.3d 1069, 1072 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (describing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) as the “three-strikes rule”). 1 1 Plaintiff’s filings are not clear regarding whether he is currently incarcerated. See Bishop v. Federal Government (All Components), No. CV 21-00321 (D.N.M. June 23, 2021), ECF No. 8 (noting that Mr. Bishop was previously incarcerated at the Eddy County Detention Center in Carlsbad, New Mexico). Regardless, the IFP statute covers plaintiffs who are not presently incarcerated. See, e.g., Lister v. Dep’t of Treasury, 408 F.3d 1309, 1312 (10th Cir. 2005) (explaining that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) “applies to all persons applying for [IFP] status, and not just to prisoners”); Tucker v. United States, 142 Fed. Cl. 697, 706 n.3 (2019) (collecting cases). Mr. Bishop has accumulated at least three strikes. See Bishop v. Federal Government (as a Whole), No. 19-00833 (D.N.M. March 4, 2020), ECF No. 12 at 1, 6 (dismissing Mr. Bishop’s complaint “for failure to state a claim and as frivolous,” and imposing a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)); Bishop v. United States, No. 20-00087 (D.N.M. March 23, 2020), ECF No. 12 at 4, 7 (dismissing Mr. Bishop’s complaint as “frivolous and delusional” and imposing a strike); Bishop v. Federal Government (as a Whole) World Wide, No. 19-01129 (D.N.M. April 1, 2020), ECF No. 4 at 1, 6 (dismissing Mr. Bishop’s complaint “for failure to state a claim and as frivolous” and imposing a strike); see also Bishop v. DHS, No. 21-00887 (D.N.M. Oct. 25, 2021), ECF No. 6 at 4, 6 (describing Mr. Bishop’s “abusive [filing] history,” noting that “[t]his is the seventh civil action [he] has initiated in the District of New Mexico,” and ordering him to show cause why the court should not impose filing restrictions). In addition, Mr. Bishop’s complaint gives no indication that he is “under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Nor does his IFP request, ECF No. 2, “include[] a statement of all assets [he] possesses,” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). For all of these …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals