Nos. 08-5073, 08-5197.United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Filed On: October 28, 2008.
BEFORE: Sentelle, Chief Judge, and Randolph and Rogers, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam
ORDER
Upon consideration of the motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis in No. 08-5197; the petition for writ of mandamus in No. 08-5197, and memorandum of law and fact in support thereof; and the motion to consolidate No. 08-5197 with Nos. 08-5073 and 08-5231, it is
Page 2
ORDERED that the motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis in No. 08-5197 be granted. See In reSmith, 114 F.3d 1247, 1250 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (citingIn re Nagy, 89 F.3d 115, 117 (2d Cir. 1996) (application of PLRA to mandamus petitions depends on the nature of the relief sought — only if the petitioner’s mandamus claim is analogous to the typical suits brought under § 1983 complaining about prison conditions does the PLRA apply)). It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for writ of mandamus in No. 08-5197 be denied. The district court properly refused to allow petitioner to file his complaint without prepayment of fees or costs given that court’s determination petitioner has incurred three “strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Because petitioner made an unsupported allegation of imminent danger of serious physical injury, petitioner was therefore ineligible to file his civil action IFP, that is, without prepayment of the entire filing fee. See28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Ibrahim v. District ofColumbia, 208 F.3d 1032, 1034, 1037 (D.C. Cir. 2000). It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to consolidate be dismissed as moot relative to No. 08-5197. Nos. 08-5073 and 08-5231 were consolidated on the court’s own motion by Clerk’s order, filed August 19, 2008.
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.