Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-1_15-cv-00061/USCOURTS-almd-1_15-cv-00061-0/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

TERRENCE POUNCEY, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO.: 1:15-CV-61-MHT

) [WO]

HOUSTON COUNTY JAIL, )

)

Defendant. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

This case is before the court on a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint filed by Terrence

Pouncey (“Pouncey”), a frequent federal litigant, presently incarcerated at the Houston

County Jail. In the instant complaint, Pouncey challenges conditions of confinement at the

jail.

II. DISCUSSION

Upon initiation of this case, Pouncey filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of FeesDoc. No. 2. However, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) directs that 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

Case 1:15-cv-00061-MHT-WC Document 3 Filed 01/29/15 Page 1 of 6
danger of serious physical injury.”

1

The undersigned takes judicial notice of federal court records which establish that

Pouncey, while incarcerated or detained, has on at least three occasions had civil actions

and/or appeals dismissed pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915 as frivolous,

malicious, for failure to state a claim and/or for asserting claims against defendants

immune from suit. The actions on which this court relies in finding a § 1915(g) violation

2

by the plaintiff include: (1) Pouncey v. City of Dothan, et al., Civil Action No. 1:11-CV10-ID (M.D. Ala. 2011);(2) Pouncey v. Stokes, et al.,Civil Action No. 1:11-CV-456-MEF

(M.D. Ala. 2011); and (3) Pouncey v. City of Dothan, et al., Civil Action No. 1:11-CV695-WHA (M.D. Ala. 2011).

3

In the instant complaint, Pouncey alleges that: (i) The jail is cold at night due to

insufficient heating; (ii) He shares a toilet with other inmates and the toilet only flushes at

set intermittent periods of time; (iii) Bedding materials are inadequate; (iv) Food portions

are unsatisfactory; (v) He was placed in lock-up for a 15-hour period for sitting on the

In Rivera v. Allin, 144 F.3d 719, 731, cert. denied, 524 U.S. 978 (1998), the Court determined that the

1

“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 considertheir 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 Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007), the Supreme Court abrogated Rivera but only to the extent

it compelled 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.

InevaluatingwhetherPounceyhasthree strikes,this courtmayproperlytake judicial noticeofitsrecords.

2

Horne v. Potter, 392 F. App’x 800, 802 (11th Cir. 2010).

Available at http://pcl.uscourts.gov/.

3

2

Case 1:15-cv-00061-MHT-WC Document 3 Filed 01/29/15 Page 2 of 6
steps; (vi) The toilet paper, toothpaste and soap provided by jail personnel are insufficient;

(vii) The law library does not contain ample legal references; (viii) Legal mail is opened

outside his presence; (ix) Medical personnel removed a cast from his foot, performed an

x-ray but provided no further treatment for his foot and provided only Motrin after he fell

in the shower; (x) Personal items of clothing are taken upon entry into the jail; and (xi) The

television channels provided for viewing are not to his liking. Complaint - Doc. No. 1 at

3. Pouncey names the Houston County Jail as the defendant in this case. 

4

The claimssetforth byPouncey regarding conditions present at the jail do not allege

the complete denial of basic necessities; instead, Pouncey merely projects his subjective

belief that the factors about which he complains are not sufficient to meet his personal

needs. With respect to the claims regarding medical treatment, the complaint makes clear

that Pouncey has access to health care personnel for treatment of medical issues and the

treatment provided was/is undertaken in accordance with their professional judgment.

Finally, the claims challenging sufficiency of the law library, confiscation of personal

clothing and television programming do not implicate physical injury.

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

Based on thisreview, the court concludesthat the conclusory allegations made by Pouncey

fail to demonstrate that he was “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the

A county jail is not a legal entity subject to suit or liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Dean v. Barber,

4

951 F.2d 1210, 1214 (11th Cir. 1992).

3

Case 1:15-cv-00061-MHT-WC Document 3 Filed 01/29/15 Page 3 of 6
time of filing this cause of action as is required to meet the exception to application of 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g). Medberry v. Butler, 185 F.3d 1189, 1193 (11th Cir. 1999) (A prisoner

who hasfiled three or more frivolouslawsuits and seeksto proceed in forma pauperis must

allege a present “imminent danger of serious physical injury” to circumvent application of

the “three strikes” provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).); Martin v. Shelton, 319 F.3d 1048,

1050 (8th Cir. 2003) (general and/or conclusory allegations are not sufficient to establish

the requisite imminent threat of serious physical harm); Lewis v. Sullivan, 279 F.3d 526,

531 (7th Cir. 2002) (Imminent danger exception available only when consequence “is

‘serious physical injury.’”). Consequently, Pouncey cannot avoid the “three strikes” bar

of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

In light of the foregoing, the court concludes that Pouncey’s motion for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis is due to be denied and this case dismissed without prejudice

as Pouncey failed to pay the requisite filing fee upon initiation of this case. Dupree v.

Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234, 1236 (11th Cir. 2002) (emphasis in original) (“[T]he proper

procedure isfor the district court to dismissthe 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 initiatesthe suit.”); Vanderberg

v. Donaldson, 259 F.3d 1321, 1324 (11th Cir. 2001) (same).

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that:

4

Case 1:15-cv-00061-MHT-WC Document 3 Filed 01/29/15 Page 4 of 6
1. The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by Terrence Pouncey on

January 27, 2015 (Doc. No. 2) be DENIED.

2. This case be dismissed without prejudice for the 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 February 12, 2015. Any objections filed must specifically

identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation to which the party is

objecting. 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 (5thCir. 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 (11thCir. 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). 

5

Case 1:15-cv-00061-MHT-WC Document 3 Filed 01/29/15 Page 5 of 6
Done this 29th day of January, 2015.

/s/ Wallace Capel, Jr.

WALLACE CAPEL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6

Case 1:15-cv-00061-MHT-WC Document 3 Filed 01/29/15 Page 6 of 6