The opinion of the court was delivered by: Karen E. Schreier Chief Judge
ORDER DENYING IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS AND DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Plaintiff, Randy Rindahl, is a prisoner at the South Dakota State Penitentiary (SDSP) in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. Rindahl has filed this pro se lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging various deprivations of his civil rights by the above-named defendants. Rindahl initially filed the instant lawsuit in the Western District of Wisconsin, but Judge Barbara Crabb transferred the case to this district because she determined the Eastern District of Wisconsin has no personal jurisdiction over defendants. See Doc. 29. Plaintiff wishes to proceed in forma pauperis. His amended complaint*fn1 is "screened" pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and 1915A.*fn2
Rindahl's Litigation History and Whether He Has Sufficiently Alleged "Imminent Danger" for IFP Status
The Prison Litigation Reform Act provides:
In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it was frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (emphasis added).
Rindahl is a frequent litigant in the District of South Dakota. He has been designated as a "three-strike" litigant who is ineligible for in forma pauperis status in the absence of a sufficient claim of imminent danger of serious physical harm. Rindahl's previous claims of imminent danger have been deemed inadequate or exaggerated.*fn3 Rindahl's lawsuits that have been
(b) Grounds for dismissal.--On review, the court shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint--
(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or
(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
dismissed upon "screening" pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) or § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)*fn4 are summarized below:
1. Rindahl v. Class, Civ. 95-4207 (D.S.D.) Rindahl claimed the DOC failed to adequately enforce its own policies. Judge Jones dismissed the claim as frivolous ...