United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin
OPINION AND ORDER
D. PETERSON DISTRICT JUDGE.
Helson Pabon Gonzalez, appearing pro se, is a prisoner at
Wisconsin Secure Program Facility. Over the past few years,
Pabon Gonzalez has filed more than a dozen lawsuits about his
treatment at Wisconsin prisons. In the course of doing so, he
has incurred three “strikes” under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g), which means that he cannot obtain indigent
status under § 1915 in any suit he files during the
period of his incarceration unless he alleges facts in his
complaint from which an inference may be drawn that he is in
imminent danger of serious physical injury. See Dkt.
20 in Case No. 17-cv-851-jdp (assessing Pabon Gonzalez
strikes in four cases).
order addresses several of his more recent cases:
• 18-cv-787-jdp: Pabon Gonzalez alleges that a
correctional officer verbally abused him and that he did not
get timely medical treatment in 2014.
• 19-cv-333-jdp: Pabon Gonzalez alleges that while he
was incarcerated at Fox Lake Correctional Institution, he
received false conduct reports, was kept in segregation
longer than ordered, and a doctor did not give him proper
• 19-cv-436-jdp: Pabon Gonzalez alleges that officers
give him false conduct reports and harass him by waking him
at an early morning medication call time, even though he
discontinued his medications.
• 19-cv-442-jdp: Pabon Gonzalez alleges that medical
staff has denied him pain medication for his back.
• 19-cv-443-jdp: Pabon Gonzalez alleges that he became
sick after he was given pain medication that had passed its
Gonzalez seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis
with each of these cases. But most of his allegations do not
meet the imminent-danger requirement of 28 U.S.C. §
1915(g). To meet this standard, a prisoner must allege a
physical injury that is imminent or occurring at the time the
complaint is filed and show that the threat or prison
condition causing the physical injury is real and proximate.
Ciarpaglini v. Saini, 352 F.3d 328, 330 (7th Cir.
2003) (citing Heimermann v. Litscher, 337 F.3d 781
(7th Cir. 2003); Lewis v. Sullivan, 279 F.3d 526,
529 (7th Cir. 2002)). Of the five cases listed above, only
one set of allegations appears to meet this standard: case
no. 19-cv-442-jdp, about the current denial of pain
medication. I will screen the complaint in that case in a
separate order. The other four cases are about incidents of
past harm or treatment at a prior facility, so they do not
meet the imminent-danger standard, and he cannot proceed
in forma pauperis with those cases.
Gonzalez may still choose to pursue any or all of those four
cases as a paying litigant. If he chooses to do so, he must
submit a check or money order made payable to the clerk of
court in the amount of $400 for each case that he wishes to
pursue. I will give him a short time to do so. For any case
in which he submits the full filing fee, I will then screen
his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and dismiss the
case if the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary
relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
case in which Pabon Gonzalez does not pay the $400 filing fee
by the deadline, the court will assume that he does not want
to pursue this action and the clerk of court will close the
case. If this happens, he will still owe the $400 filing fee
and he must pay it as soon as he has the means to do so.
Newlin v. Helman, 123 F.3d 429, 436-37 (7th Cir.
Plaintiff Helson Pabon Gonzalez's request for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED in the following
cases: 18-cv-787-jdp; ...