United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, Knoxville
PIERRE A. RENOIR, Petitioner,
WARDEN EARL R. BARKSDALE and UNKNOWN VDOC EMPLOYEES, Respondents.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
A. Renoir, a Virginia prisoner confined in the Red Onion
State Prison in Pound, Virginia, brings this pro se petition
for a writ of mandamus, seeking to compel the United States
Attorney and the Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation in Knoxville, Tennessee to investigate Warden
Earl R. Barksdale and unknown employees with the Virginia
Department of Corrections for tampering with Petitioner's
incoming and outgoing mail-all purportedly postmarked in
Knoxville, Tennessee [Doc. 1]. Plaintiff maintains, inter
alia, that the mail involves an ICBM nuclear defense system
and two prototype pocket-sized weapons of mass destruction
[Id. p. 1]. Petitioner has also submitted an
application to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. 12
to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996
(“PLRA”), codified in scattered sections of
Titles 11, 18, 28, and 42 of the United States Code, a
prisoner cannot bring a new civil action or appeal a judgment
in a civil action in forma pauperis if he has, three
or more times in the past, while incarcerated, brought a
civil action or appeal in federal court that was dismissed
because it was frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C.
§1915(g). The only exception is if the prisoner is in
“imminent danger of serious physical injury.”
See id. §1915(g).
incarcerated, Plaintiff has had at least three prior civil
rights actions dismissed for failure to state a claim.
See Renoir v. Miller, No. 7:99-CV-330 (W.D. Va. Dec.
20, 1999) (order dismissing case for failure to state a
claim); Renoir v. Angelone, No. 7:99-CV-211 (W.D.
Va. Oct. 29, 1999) (same); Renoir v. McMillan, No.
7:99-CV-356 (W.D. Va. June 28, 1999) (same); see also
Renoir v. Davidson, No. 2:08-CV-33 (W.D. Wi. Oct. 24,
2008) (denying in forma pauperis status under §
1915(g) and dismissing case for failure to pay filing fee);
and Renoir v. Brown, No. 7:07-CV-166, 2007 WL
1052477, at *1 and n.1 (W.D. Va. Apr. 5, 2007) (order
dismissing case under § 1915(g)) (listing cases).
courts in this circuit to consider the issue have held that
petitions for a writ of mandamus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1361 are civil actions to which § 1915(g) applies.
Banks v. Pugh, No. 4:13-CV-2439, 2014 WL 2442250, at
*2 (N.D. Ohio May 30, 2014) (observing that “a petition
for writ of mandamus is a ‘civil action' within the
meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)”); Banks v.
Pugh, No. 4:13-CV-2522, 2014 WL 4441470, at *2 (N.D.
Ohio Sept. 9, 2014) (same); In Re Williams v.
Michigan, No. 5:10-CV-12264, 2010 WL 2507781, at *1
(E.D. Mich. June 17, 2010) (order summarily dismissing
mandamus petition under § 1915(g)); McGore v. Mich.
Parole Bd., No. 1:09-CV-922, 2009 WL 3429102, at *1
(W.D. Mich. Oct. 23, 2009) (applying three-dismissal rule in
§ 1915(g) to deny inmate in forma pauperis
status in a mandamus petition).
the allegations in Plaintiff's complaint are irrational,
if not delusional, the Court has reviewed the complaint to
the extent possible and finds that none of the contentions
involving nuclear defense systems, weapons of mass
destruction and other explosive devices that “might
destroy the world and own it all” [Doc. 1 at 2]
possibly could qualify for § 1915(g)'s
“serious physical injury” exception.
Petitioner's motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis is DENIED [Doc. 12].
January 20, 2017, Petitioner filed a motion to withdraw his
mandamus petition as of that date [Doc. 20]. The motion to
withdraw the petition for a writ of mandamus, which is
treated as a motion for voluntary dismissal, under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a), is GRANTED [Id.].
the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, makes a prisoner,
such as Petitioner, responsible for paying the filing fee the
moment the complaint is filed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1);
McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 605 (6th Cir.
1997), overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock,
549 U.S. 199 (2007).
the dismisal of this petition, Petitioner is ASSESSED the
entire $400.00 civil filing fee. See In re Alea, 286
F.3d 378, 381 (6th Cir. 2002) (noting that a subsequent
dismissal does not nullify a prisoner's obligation to pay
the filing fee, which arises when the complaint is delivered
to the district court clerk).
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)(A) and (B), the custodian of
Petitioner's inmate trust account at the institution
where he now resides is directed to submit to the Clerk, U.S.
District Court; 800 Market Street, Suite 130, Knoxville,
Tennessee 37902, as an initial partial payment, whichever is
greater of: (a) twenty percent (20%) of the average monthly
deposits to Petitioner's inmate trust account; or (b)
twenty percent (20%) of the average monthly balance in his
inmate trust account for the six-month period preceding the
filing of the complaint. Thereafter, the custodian shall
submit twenty percent (20%) of Petitioner's preceding
monthly income (or income credited to his trust account for
the preceding month), but only when such monthly income
exceeds ten dollars ($10), until the full filing fee of four
hundred dollars ($400) has been paid to the Clerk. 28 U.S.C.
Clerk is DIRECTED to send a copy of this Order to the
custodian of inmate trust accounts at the facility wherein
Petitioner is confined, to ensure that the custodian complies
with the fee-payment provisions in this Order. The Clerk is
further DIRECTED to forward a copy of the Order to the
Court's financial deputy. This Order shall be placed in
Petitioner's institutional file and follow him if he is
transferred to another correctional facility.
Petitioner's motion to surrender U.S. citizenship, motion
for statement of settlement, and motion to expedite the
withdrawal of the ...