Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_12-cv-00474/USCOURTS-almd-2_12-cv-00474-0/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

TIMOTHY WOODS, #09369-002, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

 v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:12-CV-474-WHA

) [WO]

TERRY CAR, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On May 30, 2012, Plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated at the Montgomery City Jail, in

Montgomery, 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

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 2:12-cv-00474-WHA-CSC Document 6 Filed 06/15/12 Page 1 of 4
I. DISCUSSION 

The undersigned takes judicial notice of federal court records which establish that 2

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) Woods v. Bureau of Prisons, et al., Civil Action No. 1:98-CV-267-WWC (M.D.

Pa. 1998); (frivolous); (2) Woods v. Montgomery Municipal Court, et al., Civil Action No.

2:06-CV-575-MHT (M.D. Ala. 2006) (frivolous); and (3) Woods v. Blackmon, et al., Civil

Action No. 2:07-CV-885-MEF (M.D. Ala. 2007) (frivolous).

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

complains about an incident which occurred in March 2012 while he was on supervised

release and living in a group home in Union Springs, Alabama. Even construing all

allegations in favor of Plaintiff, his claims in this complaint do not entitle him to avoid the

bar of § 1915(g) because they do not allege nor 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). See Brown v. Johnson, 387 F.3d 1344, th

1349 (11 Cir. 2004). th

Available at http://pacer.uspci.uscourts.gov/.

2

-2-

Case 2:12-cv-00474-WHA-CSC Document 6 Filed 06/15/12 Page 2 of 4
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 (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 is 

ORDERED that the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by Plaintiff

on May 30, 2012 (Doc. No. 2) is DENIED. 

It is the RECOMMENDATION ofthe Magistrate Judge thatthis case be DISMISSED

without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to pay the full filing fee upon the initiation of this

case. 

It is further 

ORDEREDthat Plaintiffmayfile anyobjections to this Recommendation on or before

June 29, 2012. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the Magistrate

Judge's Recommendation to which Plaintiff objects. Frivolous, conclusive or general

objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are advised that this

-3-

Case 2:12-cv-00474-WHA-CSC Document 6 Filed 06/15/12 Page 3 of 4
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 advisements in the

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

District Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar the 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 th

33 (11 Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11 Cir. 1981) (en th th

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 15 day of June, 2012. th

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-4-

Case 2:12-cv-00474-WHA-CSC Document 6 Filed 06/15/12 Page 4 of 4