Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04095/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04095-0/pdf.json

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

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-4095

___________

James Michael Wilbourn, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

South Dakota State Penitentiary; J. P. * District of South Dakota.

Syverson, head nurse, in her individual *

and official capacity; Rose Garrison, * [UNPUBLISHED]

nurse, in her individual and official *

capacity; Larry Winters, nurse, in his *

individual and official capacity; *

Vincent Nesheim, nurse, in his *

individual and official capacity; Dr. *

J.H. Schaeffer, in his individual and *

official capacity; Shawn Newland, *

unit counselor, in his individual and *

official capacity; Cliff Fantory, unit *

manager, in his individual and official *

capacity; Julie Spurrell, supervisor, in *

her individual and official capacity, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: February 21, 2007

Filed: March 14, 2007

___________

Before RILEY, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 05-4095 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/14/2007 Entry ID: 3288088
1

The Honorable Richard H. Battey, United States District Judge for the District

of South Dakota.

2

Section 1915(g) of Title 28, United States Code provides:

In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a

judgment in a civil action or proceeding under this section 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.

-2-

South Dakota inmate James Wilbourn appeals the district court’s1

 preservice

dismissal without prejudice of his pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Additionally,

Wilbourn has filed numerous motions requesting appointment of counsel, relief on the

merits, and leave to conduct discovery.

In a September 1, 2005 order, the district court dismissed Wilbourn’s complaint

without prejudice upon (1) determining Wilbourn had “three strikes” under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g),2

 was not under imminent danger of serious physical injury, and had not

paid the district court filing fee; and (2) opining Wilbourn had failed to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted. We affirm the district court’s finding Wilbourn

had “three-strikes” within the meaning of section 1915(g). See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g);

Martin v. Neb. Dep’t of Corr. Servs., No. 00-2551, 2000 WL 1665076, *1 (8th Cir.

Nov. 7, 2000) (unpublished per curiam) (affirming district court’s “three strikes”

finding under § 1915(g)). Because Wilbourn’s IFP complaint was not properly before

the district court, we decline to address the court’s alternative holdings.

The district court’s preservice dismissal without prejudice is affirmed, and

Wilbourn’s pending motions are denied as moot. See 8th Cir. R. 47A(a).

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-4095 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/14/2007 Entry ID: 3288088