Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_14-cv-00157/USCOURTS-almd-2_14-cv-00157-0/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 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

MR. IVAN L. MENDEZ, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:14-CV-157-MEF

) [WO]

MR. JOSEPH BIDEN, U.S. VICE )

PRESIDENT, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On March 10, 2014, Plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated at the James T. Vaughn

Correctional Center located in Smyrna, Delaware, 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 (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." 

Case 2:14-cv-00157-MEF-TFM Document 3 Filed 03/19/14 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: See Mendez v. United States Justice System, Civil Action No. 04-CV-898-JJF (D.

Del. March 30, 2005) (dismissed as frivolous); Mendez v. James T. Vaughn Corr. Ctr., Civil

Action No. 05-CV-303-JJF (D. Del., Dec. 1, 2005) (dismissed for failure to state a claim);

Mendez v. Delaware Legal System, Civil Action No. 05-CV-304-JJF (D. Del. Dec. 1, 2005)

(dismissed for failure to state a claim); Mendez v. Delaware State, Civil Action No. 05-CV305-JFF (D. Del. Dec. 1, 2005) (dismissed for failure to state a claim); Mendez v. Delaware

Psychiatric Ctr., Civil Action No. 05-CV-306-JJF (D. Del.Dec. 1, 2005) (dismissed for

failure to state a claim). See also Mendez v. Kemp, Civil Action No. 08-CV-443-JJF (D. Del.

July 30, 2009) (dismissing complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)); accord Mendez v. One of

the Connected Wire Members of this Criminal Organization, Civil Action No. 10-CV-142-JP

(E.D. Pa. Jan. 22, 2010); Mendez v. The Connected Wire Members, et al., Civil Action No.

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

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 Fed. Appx. 800, 802 (11 Cir. 2010). th

-2-

Case 2:14-cv-00157-MEF-TFM Document 3 Filed 03/19/14 Page 2 of 5
CV 11-7758-JFW (DTB) (C.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2012).

3

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

physical injury is imminent are not sufficient to invoke the exception to § 1915(g).” Niebla

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

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

th

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 (10 Cir. 1998) (internal quotations omitted). The

th

“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 (7

th

Cir. 2002).

Here, the court finds that the claims presented by Plaintiff in this complaint do not

entitle him to avoid the bar of § 1915(g). This is because a review of the allegations

presented in Plaintiff’s complaint fail to allege or 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

See Mendez v. Unnamed, No. 1:12-cv-1088-JEC (N.D. Ga. Apr. 5, 2012) (listing cases), adopted

3

by Order (Apr. 24, 2012) (dismissing case under the three-strikes provision of the Prison Litigation Reform

Act). Also available at http://pcl.uscourts.gov/.

-3-

Case 2:14-cv-00157-MEF-TFM Document 3 Filed 03/19/14 Page 3 of 5
Based on the foregoing, the court concludes that Plaintiff's motion for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis should 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

(“[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 isthe RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that:

1. The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by Plaintiff on March 10,

2014, (Doc. No. 2) be DENIED; and

2. 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 April 3, 2014, Plaintiff may file an objection to the

Recommendation. Any objection 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. Plaintiff is advised that this

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

-4-

Case 2:14-cv-00157-MEF-TFM Document 3 Filed 03/19/14 Page 4 of 5
Failure to file a written objection to the proposed findings and advisements in the

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

District Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar a 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 33 (11 Cir. 1982). See

th th

also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11 Cir. 1981) (en banc), adopting as

th

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 19 day of March 2014.

th

/s/Terry F. Moorer

TERRY F. MOORER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-5-

Case 2:14-cv-00157-MEF-TFM Document 3 Filed 03/19/14 Page 5 of 5