Alstonv.Federal Bureau of Investigation

United States District Court, D. ColumbiaFeb 2, 2011
Civil Action No.: 09-1397 (RMU) (D.D.C. Feb. 2, 2011)

Civil Action No.: 09-1397 (RMU).

February 2, 2011


RICARDO URBINA, District Judge

The plaintiff, a pro se litigant currently incarcerated in Florida, commenced this action against the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"), seeking redress under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. § 552. Compl. at 1. The court granted him leave to proceed in forma pauperis on August 20, 2009. Minute Order (August 20, 2009). On November 2, 2010, the court determined that at the time that the plaintiff commenced this action, he had accumulated three or more "strikes" as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See generally Mem Op. (Nov. 2, 2010). The court thus vacated its previous order granting the plaintiff in forma pauperis status and directed the plaintiff to pay the $350 filing fee applicable to this civil action within thirty days or suffer dismissal of the case. See Order (Nov. 2, 2010).

Under 28 U.S.C. 1915(g), the court is required to deny a prisoner's motion to proceed under in forma pauperis status if he 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." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

To date, the plaintiff has not paid the filing fee, and his most recent filing, a motion for "Accrocher Litigation" provides no basis for reconsideration of that order. See generally Pl.'s Mot. for Accrocher Litigation. Because the plaintiff was warned that his case would be dismissed if he did not pay the filing fee, and because such a filing fee has not yet been paid, the court dismisses the above-captioned case without prejudice. See Benavides v. Drug Enforcement Admin., Civ. No. 10-043, (D.D.C. August 20, 2010) (Dismissal Order) (dismissing the case without prejudice because the plaintiff, whose in forma pauperis status had been revoked, failed to pay the filing fee within the allotted time).

The plaintiff suggests, without providing any legal authority, that the court does not have the authority to strip his in forma pauperis status. See Pl.'s Mot. for Accrocher Litigation at 2. It is beyond cavil, however, that this court may revise any order issued before the entry of a final judgment in any given case. FED. R. CIV. PROC. 54(b).

An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is separately and contemporaneously issued this 2nd day of February, 2011.