United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin
OPINION AND ORDER
D. PETERSON DISTRICT JUDGE
Randy Lee Rindahl, appearing pro se, is a state of South
Dakota inmate. He alleges that state of Wisconsin officials
fraudulently reported to South Dakota officials another
prisoner's criminal history as his own, which led to him
being denied parole. Rindahl seeks leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, but I conclude that he is ineligible for
that status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
court has previously allowed Rindahl to proceed in forma
pauperis in this court despite the United States
District Court for the District of South Dakota concluding
that Rindahl had three “strikes” under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g): this court concluded that only two of the
cases that the South Dakota district court had assessed as
strikes would count as strikes under the standards
articulated by the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
See Rindahl v. Daugaard, No. 11-cv-121-slc (May 9,
2011) (citing Turley v. Gaetz, 625 F.3d 1005, 1012
(7th Cir. 2010)). But since then, Rindahl incurred a strike
in another District of South Dakota case. See Rindahl v.
McCloud, No. 08-cv-4041-KES (D.S.D. Feb. 4, 2013)
(recounting Rindahl's various futile attempts to amend
his complaint to state a claim upon which relief could be
granted); see also Rindahl v. Pristen, No.
13-cv-4078-RAL (discussing Rindahl's strike history,
including his strike in the '4041 case). I conclude that
Rindahl's strike in the '4041 case counts as a strike
under Seventh Circuit standards because the South Dakota
court has concluded that further attempts to amend the
complaint would be futile. See Paul v. Marberry, 658
F.3d 702, 705 (7th Cir. 2011) (dismissal while encouraging an
amendment is not a strike). So I conclude that he has three
strikes under § 1915(g).
means that Rindahl 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. Rindahl's allegations about
Wisconsin officials sending fraudulent criminal records to
South Dakota parole officials do not meet this standard, so
he cannot proceed in forma pauperis with this case.
I will dismiss the case without prejudice. Rindahl may seek
to reopen the case by submitting the entire $400 filing fee
by the date set below.
Rindahl seeks to reopen the case or file any other lawsuit in
this court, he will have to address another issue. He was
assessed a further sanction by the South Dakota district
court: because he falsified a series of documents, the court
required him to attach copies of the court's orders
discussing his misconduct to any future complaint he files in
any state or federal court. See Rindahl v. Daugaard,
No. 11-cv-4082-KES, at 11-14 (D.S.D. Sept. 29, 2011). Rindahl
did not attach those orders to his complaint in this case.
Although this court is not bound by the sanctions decisions
of other district courts, I am inclined to adopt the South
Dakota sanction as this court's own, and I would consider
dismissing this case outright for Rindahl's failure to
follow the South Dakota district court's sanction order.
But I will not take any further action without giving Rindahl
a chance to respond. So if he seeks to reopen this case, he
must also show cause why the court should not dismiss his
case for failing to comply with the South Dakota district
Plaintiff Randy Lee Rindahl's motion for his case
“to be brought forth, ” Dkt. 5, is GRANTED.
Plaintiff's request for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis is DENIED because he is ineligible for in
forma pauperis status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
case is DISMISSED without prejudice. The clerk of court is
directed to enter judgment for defendants and close the case.
Plaintiff may have until July 24, 2019, to seek reopening of
the case by paying the full $400 filing fee.
Should plaintiff seek to reopen this case, he may have until
July 24, 2019, to show cause why he should not be sanctioned
under the terms of the September 29, 2011 sanction order
issued by the United States District Court for the District
of South Dakota.
 Rindahl has filed a motion asking for
his case “to be brought forth.” Dkt. 5. I will
grant that motion and consider his ...