Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_08-cv-00002/USCOURTS-almd-2_08-cv-00002-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

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

NORTHERN DIVISION

 ____________________________

MARGUERITE L. R. H. BROOKS, *

 #171 716

Plaintiff, *

 v. * 2:08-CV-2-WKW

 (WO)

STATE OF ALABAMA, et al., *

Defendants. *

 ____________________________

ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On January 2, 2008 Marguerite Brooks, an inmate incarcerated at the Julia Tutwiler

Prison for Women located in Wetumpka, 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 2:08-cv-00002-WKW-SRW Document 3 Filed 01/15/08 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) Brooks v. Siegelman, et al., Civil Action No. 2:01-CV569-ID (M.D. Ala. 2001), (2) Brooks v. Gordon, et al., Civil Action No. 2:01-CV-516-MHT

(M.D. Ala. 2001), (3) Brooks v. James, et al., Civil Action No. 2:01-CV-228-ID (M.D. Ala.

2001), and (4) Brooks v. James, et al., Civil Action No.2: 01-CV-196-WHA (M.D. Ala.

2001).

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

allegations in the instant complaint do not entitle her to avoid the bar of § 1915(g) because

her claims do not allege nor in any way indicate that she was “ under imminent danger of

serious physical injury” at the time she 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). “General allegations that are not grounded in specific facts

which indicate that serious 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 (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

Case 2:08-cv-00002-WKW-SRW Document 3 Filed 01/15/08 Page 2 of 4
3

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). 

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 (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 [s]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 January 2, 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 are DIRECTED to file any objections to the said

Recommendation on or before January 28, 2008. Any objections filed must specifically

identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which a party objects.

Case 2:08-cv-00002-WKW-SRW Document 3 Filed 01/15/08 Page 3 of 4
4

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 recommendations in the

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

Court of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual

findings in the report 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 Securities, 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 15th day of January 2008.

 /s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:08-cv-00002-WKW-SRW Document 3 Filed 01/15/08 Page 4 of 4