Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-3_08-cv-00599/USCOURTS-almd-3_08-cv-00599-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

In Rivera v. Allin, 144 F.3d 719, 731 (11 Cir. 1998), the Court determined that the "three strikes" 1 th

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." 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

 _____________________________

MICHAEL D. ROBERTS, *

Plaintiff, *

 v. * 3:08-CV-599-WHA

 (WO) 

JAY JONES, SHERIFF DEPT., et al., *

Defendants. *

 _____________________________ 

ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On July 25, 2008, Plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated at the Lee County Detention Center

located in Opelika, 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

Case 3:08-cv-00599-WHA-WC Document 3 Filed 07/28/08 Page 1 of 4
-2-

DISCUSSION 

Court records establish that Plaintiff, while incarcerated or detained, has on at least

three occasions had 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) Roberts v. Winston, et al., Civil Action No. 3:99-CV1012-ID (M.D. Ala. 2000) (frivolous); (2) Roberts v. Chapman, et al., Civil Action No. 3:99-

CV-1010-WhA (M.D. Ala. 2000) (frivolous); and (3) Roberts v. Strickland, et al., Civil

Action No. 3:99-CV-38-WHA (M.D. Ala. 2000) (appeal frivolous).

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

complains about being subjected to an illegal search and seizure and false arrest in 2006.

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 (11 Cir. 1999). th

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

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 (11 Cir. 2002) (emphasis in original) th

Case 3:08-cv-00599-WHA-WC Document 3 Filed 07/28/08 Page 2 of 4
-3-

(“[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.”).

CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, it is 

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

on July 25, 2008 (Doc. No. 2) is DENIED. 

It is the RECOMMENDATION of the 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 the parties shall file any objections to this Recommendation on or

before August 11, 2008. 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.

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

Case 3:08-cv-00599-WHA-WC Document 3 Filed 07/28/08 Page 3 of 4
-4-

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

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

33 (11 Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11 Cir. 1981) (en th th

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 28th day of July 2008.

 /s/ Wallace Capel, Jr. 

WALLACE CAPEL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-00599-WHA-WC Document 3 Filed 07/28/08 Page 4 of 4