Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_12-cv-00468/USCOURTS-almd-2_12-cv-00468-0/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 DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

TYRONE NUNN, SR., )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 2:12cv468-TMH

) (WO) 

MYRON H. THOMPSON, et al., )

 )

)

 Defendants. ) 

ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This Bivens action is before the court on a complaint filed by Tyrone Nunn, Sr.

1

(“Nunn”), a federal inmate and frequent litigant in this court, on or around May 29, 2012.

(Doc. No. 1.) In connection with his complaint, Nunn has filed an application for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). (Doc. No. 6.) However, pursuant to

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.”

2

 See Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). 1

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

2 th

“three 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

Case 2:12-cv-00468-TMH-SRW Document 7 Filed 06/18/12 Page 1 of 4
The records of the Federal Courts establish that Nunn, while incarcerated or detained,

has on at least seven prior occasions had civil actions 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 this court

relies in finding a violation of § 1915(g) are (1) Nunn v. Thompson, et al., Case No

2:11cv113-ID-SRW (M.D. Ala. 2011); (2) Nunn v. Thompson, et al., Case No

2:10cv272-TMH-SRW (M.D. Ala. 2010); (3) Nunn v. Thompson, et al., Case No

2:10cv338-WHA-SRW (M.D. Ala. 2010); (4) Nunn v. City of Wedowee Police Dept. et al.,

Case No. 3:10cv507-TMH-SRW (M.D. Ala. 2010); (5) Nunn v. Bailey, et al., Case No.

3:05cv1059-MHT-VPM (M.D. Ala. 2005); (6) Nunn v. Clay County Hospital, et al., Case

No. 7:05-CV-515-SLB (N.D. Ala. 2005); and (7) Nunn v. Bank of Wedowee - Woodland

Branch, Case No. 3:03cv392-MEF-VPM (M.D. Ala. 2003).

The court has carefully reviewed the claims presented in the instant case. The

allegations made the basis of Nunn’s complaint fail to demonstrate that Nunn was “under

imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time he initiated this cause of action, as

is required to meet the imminent danger exception to application of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See

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 Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007), the Supreme Court abrogated Rivera,

but only to the extent Rivera required an inmate to plead exhaustion of remedies in his

complaint, as “failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense under the PLRA ... and inmates

are not required to specifically plead or demonstrate exhaustion in their complaints.” 549

U.S. at 216. 

2

Case 2:12-cv-00468-TMH-SRW Document 7 Filed 06/18/12 Page 2 of 4
Medberry v. Butler, 185 F.3d 1189, 1193 (11 Cir. 1999) (a prisoner who has filed three or

th

more frivolous lawsuits and seeks to proceed in forma pauperis must allege a present

“imminent danger” to circumvent application of the “three strikes” provision of 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g)). The court therefore concludes that Nunn’s motion for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis should be denied and this case dismissed without prejudice for Nunn’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) (“[T]he proper

th

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

Accordingly, it is

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

(Doc. No. 6) be and is hereby DENIED. Additionally, it is the RECOMMENDATION of

the Magistrate Judge that this case be dismissed at this time without prejudice for the

plaintiff’s failure to pay the full filing fee upon the initiation of this case.

It is further

ORDERED that on or before July 2, 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 the party is objecting. Frivolous, conclusive

3

Case 2:12-cv-00468-TMH-SRW Document 7 Filed 06/18/12 Page 3 of 4
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

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 18 day of June, 2012.

th

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 2:12-cv-00468-TMH-SRW Document 7 Filed 06/18/12 Page 4 of 4