Legal Opinion

BALL v. HAIDLE

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

Decided April 16, 2021No. 3:21-cv-00434Unknown

1Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA DAWN BALL, #20190001029, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:21-cv-00434 v. (SAPORITO, M.J.) WARDEN GARRY HAIDLE, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM The plaintiff in this case, Dawn Marie Ball, was previously granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in this action. It has come to our attention that the incarcerated plaintiff is subject to the “three strikes rule” set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). For the reasons stated herein, upon sua sponte reconsideration of our prior order granting leave to proceed IFP, we will revoke the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Coleman v. TollefsonSupreme Court of the United States · 2015
  2. Dawn Ball v. FamiglioCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2013
  3. Debro S. Abdul-Akbar v. Roderick R. MckelvieCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2001
  4. Henry Gibbs, Jr. v. Officer Paul Cross, Maintenance SupervisorCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1998
  5. Mitchell v. Federal Bureau of PrisonsCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2009

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API