Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00145/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00145-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JESSE PETTAWAY, JR., :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 06-0145-KD-M

JIMMY B. JOHNSON, et al., : 

Defendants. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This § 1983 action, which was filed by an Alabama prison

inmate, along with a Motion to Proceed Without Prepayment of

Fees, has been referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.2(c)(4) for appropriate action. 

It is the undersigned’s recommendation that Plaintiff’s Affidavit

of Substantial Hardship (Doc. 7) be denied and that this action

be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

Section 1915(g) provides: 

In no event shall a prisoner bring a

civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil

action or proceeding under this section [28

U.S.C. § 1915] 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 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.

In reviewing Plaintiff’s recently filed Complaint and

Case 1:06-cv-00145-KD-M Document 9 Filed 06/22/06 Page 1 of 4
2

Affidavit of Substantial Hardship (Docs. 6 & 7), the Court

examined its docket, along with the dockets of the United States

District Courts for the Middle and Northern Districts of Alabama,

and discovered that Plaintiff had three actions previously

dismissed either as frivolous or for failure to state a claim,

namely, Pettaway v. Mikul, CA 04-0116-CG-C (S.D. Ala. Mar. 28,

2005); Pettaway v. Mikul, CA 03-0848-CB-B (S.D. Ala. Oct. 24,

2005); Pettaway v. Enfinger, et al., CA 94-0341-CB-M (S.D. Ala. 

June 3, 1994).

Furthermore, in the Complaint (Doc. 6) Plaintiff alleges

that in January, 2006, as a state inmate, he was incarcerated at

the Baldwin County Corrections Center for a court appearance and,

while he was temporarily there, he was held in a cell block with

inmates of varied classifications thereby putting his life in

danger, received cold food, was subjected to an absence of heat,

was not treated for a cold, did not receive outside recreation or

a medical screening test within seventy-two hours upon

incarceration, was assaulted by an inmate due to the lack of

security, and did not receive a response to a grievance. When

Plaintiff filed his original Complaint on March 9, 2006 (Doc. 1),

he was incarcerated at Bullock Correctional Facility, not at the 

Baldwin County Corrections Center. Accordingly, the Court finds

Plaintiff’s allegations do not demonstrate that he was “under

imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time he filed

Case 1:06-cv-00145-KD-M Document 9 Filed 06/22/06 Page 2 of 4
3

this action (Doc. 1). Therefore, he cannot avail himself of the

exception to § 1915(g). Medberry v. Butler, 185 F.3d 1189, 1193

(11th Cir. 1999) (holding that the plaintiff must face imminent

danger of serious physical injury at the time the complaint is

filed, not at a prior time). 

 Because Plaintiff did not pay the $250.00 filing fee at the

time he filed this action and has not met § 1915(g)’s exception

that he was “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at

the time of filing, Plaintiff’s action is due to be dismissed

without prejudice. Dupree v. Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234, 1236 (11th

Cir. 2002) (holding that the action must be dismissed without

prejudice when an inmate who is subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)

does not pay the full filing fee at the time he initiates the

action). Accordingly, it is recommended that Plaintiff’s

Affidavit of Substantial Hardship (Doc. 7) be denied and that

this action be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g).

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S EXPLANATION OF PROCEDURAL RIGHTS

AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION

AND FINDINGS CONCERNING NEED FOR TRANSCRIPT

1. Objection. Any party who objects to this recommendation or

anything in it must, within ten days of the date of service of

this document, file specific written objections with the clerk of

court. Failure to do so will bar a de novo determination by the

district judge of anything in the recommendation and will bar an

attack, on appeal, of the factual findings of the magistrate

judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d

736, 738 (11th Cir. 1988); Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404

(5th Cir. Unit B, 1982)(en banc). The procedure for challenging

the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge is set

Case 1:06-cv-00145-KD-M Document 9 Filed 06/22/06 Page 3 of 4
4

out in more detail in SD ALA LR 72.4 (June 1, 1997), which

provides that:

A party may object to a recommendation entered by a

magistrate judge in a dispositive matter, that is, a

matter excepted by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), by filing

a “Statement of Objection to Magistrate Judge’s

Recommendation” within ten days after being served with

a copy of the recommendation, unless a different time

is established by order. The statement of objection

shall specify those portions of the recommendation to

which objection is made and the basis for the

objection. The objecting party shall submit to the

district judge, at the time of filing the objection, a

brief setting forth the party’s arguments that the

magistrate judge’s recommendation should be reviewed de

novo and a different disposition made. It is

insufficient to submit only a copy of the original

brief submitted to the magistrate judge, although a

copy of the original brief may be submitted or referred

to and incorporated into the brief in support of the

objection. Failure to submit a brief in support of the

objection may be deemed an abandonment of the

objection.

A magistrate judge’s recommendation cannot be appealed to a

Court of Appeals; only the district judge’s order or judgment can

be appealed.

2. Transcript (applicable where proceedings tape recorded). 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), the

magistrate judge finds that the tapes and original records in

this action are adequate for purposes of review. Any party

planning to object to this recommendation, but unable to pay the

fee for a transcript, is advised that a judicial determination

that transcription is necessary is required before the United

States will pay the cost of the transcript.

DONE this 22nd day of June, 2006.

S/BERT W. MILLING, JR. 

BERT W. MILLING, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00145-KD-M Document 9 Filed 06/22/06 Page 4 of 4