Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-1_12-cv-00500/USCOURTS-almd-1_12-cv-00500-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

TERRENCE POUNCEY, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

 v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO.: 1:12-CV-500-TMH

) [WO] 

CITY OF DOTHAN, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On June 12, 2012, Plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated at the Dothan City Jail located in

Dothan, Alabama, filed an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a). Pursuant to the directives of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner is not allowed to

bring a civil action or proceed on appeal in forma pauperis if he “has, on 3 or more

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 is 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.”1

In Rivera v. Allin, 144 F.3d 719, 731 (11th Cir. 1998), the Court determined that the “three

1

strikes” provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which requires frequent filer prisoner indigents to prepay

the entire filing fee before federal courts may consider their cases and appeals, “does not violate the

First Amendment right to access the courts; the separation of judicial and legislative powers; the

Fifth Amendment right to due process of law; or the Fourteenth Amendment right to equal

protection, as incorporated through the Fifth Amendment.” 

Case 1:12-cv-00500-TMH-WC Document 3 Filed 06/14/12 Page 1 of 5
I. DISCUSSION 

The undersigned takes judicial notice of federal court records which establish that 2

Plaintiff, while incarcerated or detained, has had on at least three occasions civil actions

and/or appeals dismissed as frivolous, malicious, for failure to state a claim, and/or for

asserting claims against defendants who were immune from suit pursuant to the provisions

of 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The cases on which the court relies in finding a violation of § 1915(g)

include: (1) Pouncey v. City of Dothan, et al., Civil Action No. 1:11-CV-10-ID (M.D. Ala.

2011); (2) Pouncey v. Stokes, et al., Civil Action No. 1:11-CV-456-MEF (M.D. Ala. 2011);

and (3) Pouncey v. City of Dothan, et al., Civil Action No. 1:11-CV-695-WHA (M.D. Ala.

2011.3

Plaintiff brings this civil rights action seeking damages and injunctive relief for

various alleged constitutional violations. Specifically, Plaintiff complains that he is being

denied access to the courts, that he has had a bond improperly revoked, that he is falsely

imprisoned, and that he was required to serve a sentence more than once for the same

offense. Doc. No. 1. 

“General allegations that are not grounded in specific facts which indicate that serious

In evaluating whether Plaintiff has three strikes, the court may properly take judicial notice 2

of pleadings and orders in a previous case when the orders are public records and are “not subject

to reasonable dispute because they [are] capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to

sources whose accuracy could not reasonably be questioned.” Horne v. Potter, 392 F. App’x 800,

802 (11th Cir. 2010). 

Available at http://pcl.uscourts.gov/.

3

-2-

Case 1:12-cv-00500-TMH-WC Document 3 Filed 06/14/12 Page 2 of 5
physical injury is imminent are not sufficient to invoke the exception to § 1915(g).” Niebla

v. Walton Corr. Inst., 2006 WL 2051307, at *2 (N.D. Fla. July 20, 2006) (citing Martin v.

Shelton, 319 F.3d 1048, 1050 (8th Cir. 2003). “The plaintiff must allege and provide specific

fact allegations of ongoing serious physical injury, or a pattern of misconduct evidencing the

likelihood of imminent serious physical injury, and vague allegations of harm and unspecific

references to injury are insufficient.” Id. (citing Martin, supra, and White v. State of

Colorado, 157 F.3d 1226, 1231 (10th Cir. 1998) (internal quotations omitted). The

“imminent danger” exception is available “for genuine emergencies,” where “time is

pressing” and “a threat . . . is real and proximate.” Lewis v. Sullivan, 279 F.3d 526, 531 (7th 

Cir. 2002).

The court has carefully reviewed the claims presented in the instant action. Even

construing all allegations in favor of Plaintiff, his claims in this complaint do not entitle him

to avoid the bar of § 1915(g) because they do not allege nor in any way indicate that he was

“ under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time he filed this cause of action

as is required to meet the imminent danger exception to the application of 28 U.S.C. §

1915(g). Medberry v. Butler, 185 F.3d 1189 (11th Cir. 1999). See Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie,

239 F.3d 307, 315 (3d Cir. 2001) (“By using the term ‘imminent,’ Congress indicated that

it wanted to include a safety valve for the ‘three strikes’ rule to prevent impending harms, not

those harms that had already occurred.”). 

Based on the foregoing, the court concludes that Plaintiff's motion for leave to

-3-

Case 1:12-cv-00500-TMH-WC Document 3 Filed 06/14/12 Page 3 of 5
proceed in forma pauperis is due to be denied and this case dismissed without prejudice for 

Plaintiff’s failure to pay the requisite $350.00 filing fee upon the initiation of this cause of

action. Dupree v. Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234, 1236 (11th Cir. 2002) (emphasis in original)

(“[T]he proper procedure is for the district court to dismiss the complaint without prejudice

when it denies the prisoner leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to the provisions of

§ 1915(g)” because the prisoner “must pay the filing fee at the time he initiates the suit.”). 

II. CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, it is 

ORDERED that the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by Plaintiff

on June 12, 2012 (Doc. No. 2) is DENIED. 

It is the RECOMMENDATIONofthe Magistrate Judge that this case be DISMISSED

without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to pay the full filing fee upon the initiation of this

case. 

It is further 

ORDERED that on or before June 28, 2012, the parties may file objections to the

Recommendation. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the

Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation to which a party objects. Frivolous, conclusive or

general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are advised that

this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable.

-4-

Case 1:12-cv-00500-TMH-WC Document 3 Filed 06/14/12 Page 4 of 5
Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and advisements in the

Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the

District Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar the party from

attacking on appeal factual findings in the Recommendation accepted or adopted by the

District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v.

Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Sec., Inc., 667 F.2d 33

(11th Cir. 1982); see also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en

banc) (adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed

down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981).

Done this 14th day of June, 2012.

/s/ Wallace Capel, Jr.

WALLACE CAPEL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-5-

Case 1:12-cv-00500-TMH-WC Document 3 Filed 06/14/12 Page 5 of 5