Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00476/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00476-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees

was granted (Doc. 3). An Order rescinding this grant of in forma

pauperis status is being entered contemporaneously with this

Report and Recommendation.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RE’NAUL M. JOHNSON, a/k/a 

ARIEL A. ADLA, # 166237, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 06-0476-KD-M

JAMES HALL, :

Defendant. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This § 1983 action, filed by an Alabama prison inmate

proceeding pro se and seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis

(Doc. 3),1 was 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 recommended that Plaintiff’s 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,

Case 1:06-cv-00476-KD-M Document 24 Filed 01/09/08 Page 1 of 5
2

unless the prisoner is under imminent danger

of serious physical injury.

Defendant James Hall asserts in his Answer (Doc. 21) and

Special Report (Doc. 22) that Plaintiff filed more than four

frivolous lawsuits in the United States District Court for the

Middle District of Alabama and, therefore, has lost the right to

proceed in forma pauperis in this action according to the Prison

Litigation Reform Act. Id. at 2. Upon being advised of this,

the Court examined the records of the Court for the Middle

District and discovered that Plaintiff had several actions and

appeals dismissed on the grounds enumerated under 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B). See Adla v. Bowers, et al., CA 04-0111-MHT-DRB

(M.D. Ala. Mar.10, 2004); Adla v. Glover, CA 04-0171-MEF-DRB

(M.D. Ala. May 10, 2004); Johnson v. Ellison, et al., CA 98-1360-

ID-CSC (M.D. Ala. Feb. 4, 1999); Johnson v. Young, et al., CA 97-

1211-MHT-VPM (M.D. Ala. Feb. 20, 1998), dismissed (11th Cir. Nov.

4, 1998) (appeal frivolous); Johnson v. Robinson, et al., CA 98-

1359-ID-CSC (M.D. Ala. Oct. 16, 2000), dismissed (11th Cir. Mar.

2, 2001) (appeal frivolous). Furthermore, the Court for the

Middle District dismissed several of Plaintiff’s actions under 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g). Adla v. Houston County Jail, et al., CA 04-

0110-MHT-DRB (M.D. Ala. Apr. 7, 2004); Adla v. Spiegner, et al.,

CA 04-0164-MEF-DRB (M.D. Ala. Apr. 14, 2004); Adla v. Glover, et

al., CA 04-0181-WHA-DRB (M.D. Ala. Apr. 27, 2004); Adla v. City

Case 1:06-cv-00476-KD-M Document 24 Filed 01/09/08 Page 2 of 5
3

of Dothan, Ala., et al., CA 04-0258-MEF-DRB (M.D. Ala. Apr. 27,

2004); and Johnson v. Houston County Comm., et al., CA 05-0899-

MEF-DRB (M.D. Ala. Oct. 28, 2005).

In the present action, Plaintiff’s superseding amended

complaint (Doc. 9) does not indicate that at the time of filing

Plaintiff was “under imminent danger of serious physical injury.”

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). 

That is, Plaintiff’s present action is concerned with the

injuries that Plaintiff sustained when he fell from his top bunk

on December 31, 2004, after Defendant did not provide him with a

bottom bunk which was prescribed for him. Considering that

Plaintiff’s action was filed much later on August 16, 2006, the

requirement of imminent danger is not satisfied by his

allegations. Therefore, Plaintiff’s amended complaint does not

meet § 1915(g)’s “imminent danger of serious physical injury”

exception.

Because Plaintiff did not pay the $350.00 filing fee at the

time he filed this action and cannot avail himself of § 1915(g)’s

exception, Plaintiff’s action is due to be dismissed without

prejudice. Dupree v. Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234, 1236 (11th Cir.

2002) (holding that an action must be dismissed without prejudice

when an inmate who is subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) does not pay

Case 1:06-cv-00476-KD-M Document 24 Filed 01/09/08 Page 3 of 5
4

the full filing fee at the time he initiates the action);

Vanderberg v. Donaldson, 259 F.3d 1321, 1324 (11th Cir.) (holding

that the filing fee paid must be paid by an inmate subject to §

1915(g) at the time an action is commenced), cert. denied, 535

U.S. 976 (2002). Accordingly, it is recommended 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

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

Case 1:06-cv-00476-KD-M Document 24 Filed 01/09/08 Page 4 of 5
5

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 8th day of January, 2008. 

_________________________________

S/BERT W. MILLING, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00476-KD-M Document 24 Filed 01/09/08 Page 5 of 5