Whether a prisoner with three prior frivolous dismissals can proceed in forma pauperis under the Prison Litigation Reform Act without demonstrating imminent danger of serious physical injury

No question identified. : FILED: July 18, 2023 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 23-6169 (5:21-ct-03072-D) ANTHONY ANDREWS Plaintiff Appellant Vv. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; AUSA RUDY E. RENFER; AUSA KIMBERLY A. MOORE; AUSA KELLY M. PERRY Defendants Appellees ORDER The court denies the petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc. No judge requested a poll under Fed. R. App. P. 35 on the petition for rehearing en banc. Further, the court denies the motion to stay the mandate as premature. Entered at the direction of the panel: Judge Agee, Judge Wynn, and Judge Quattlebaum. For the Court /s/ Patricia S. Connor, Clerk FILED: May 23, 2023 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 23-6169 (5:21-ct-03072-D) ANTHONY ANDREWS, Plaintiff Appellant, Vv. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; AUSA RUDY E. RENFER; AUSA KIMBERLY A. MOORE; AUSA KELLY M. PERRY, Defendants Appellees. ORDER Anthony Andrews applies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 28 US.C, § 1915(b), to proceed on appeal without prepayment of fees. If an applicant has had three actions or appeals dismissed on the ground that they were frivolous, were malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, the applicant may not proceed without prepayment of fees unless the applicant “is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C, § 1915(g). Andrews has had three such prior dismissals: Andrews v. Jordan, 225 F, App’x 158 (4th Cir. 2007) (No. 06-7773); Andrews v. Fox, 109 F. App’x 603 (4th Cir. 2004) (No. 04 6936); Andrews v. Suter, No. 1:05-cv-01173-UNA (D.D.C. June 10, 2005). We conclude that Andrews has not adequately shown that he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. We therefore deny the application to proceed without prepayment of fees under the PLRA. Entered at the direction of the panel: Judge Agee, Judge Wynn, and Judge Quattlebaum. For the Court /s/ Patricia S. Connor, Clerk FILED: July 27, 2023 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 23-6169 (5:21-ct-03072-D) ANTHONY ANDREWS Plaintiff Appellant Vv. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; AUSA RUDY E. RENFER; AUSA KIMBERLY A. MOORE; AUSA KELLY M. PERRY Defendants Appellees ORDER Upon consideration of submissions relative to the motion to stay mandate, the court denies the motion. For the Court--By Direction /s/ Patricia S. Connor, Clerk FILED: August 24, 2023 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 23-6169 (5:21-ct-03072-D) ANTHONY ANDREWS Plaintiff Appellant Vv. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; AUSA RUDY E. RENFER; AUSA KIMBERLY A. MOORE; AUSA KELLY M. PERRY Defendants Appellees ORDER The court dismisses this proceeding for failure to prosecute pursuant to Local Rule 45. For the Court--By Direction /s/ Patricia S. Connor, Clerk FILED: August 24, 2023 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 23-6169 (5:21-ct-03072-D) ANTHONY ANDREWS Plaintiff Appellant Vv. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; AUSA RUDY E. RENFER; AUSA KIMBERLY A. MOORE; AUSA KELLY M. PERRY Defendants Appellees RULE 45 MANDATE This court's order dismissing this appeal pursuant to Local Rule 45 takes effect today. This constitutes the formal mandate of this court issued pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. /s/Patricia S. Connor, Clerk Re lace 3 i. & . i | _ | Tt ia oaks imi 7 teal @)