Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00694/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00694-0/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

JAMES BROADHEAD, #224 802, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-CV-694-WKW

) [WO]

CORRECTIONAL SIDDIQ, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

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

[“Broadhead”], a frequent federal litigant, incarcerated at the Bullock Correctional Facility in 

Union Springs, Alabama. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a prisoner may not 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 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(g).

																																																												 1 In Rivera v. Allin, 144 F.3d 719, 731 (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 Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 216 (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.”

Case 2:16-cv-00694-WKW-TFM Document 2 Filed 09/07/16 Page 1 of 7
2

II. RELEVANT CASE HISTORY2 

In June 2011, Broadhead filed a civil action with this court in which he raised a similar

claim for relief, i.e., assaulted by correctional officers due to his conviction for sexually assaulting

an elderly woman. Broadhead v. Dozier, et al., Case No. 2:11-CV-489-MEF-TFM (M.D. Ala. 

2012). Broadhead filed two other civil actions with this court in 2011 alleging a substantially 

similar claim for relief with the only differences in each of those complaints being the date of the 

alleged incident and the individuals named as defendants. Broadhead v. Woodard, et al., Case No. 

2:11-CV-341-MEF-TFM (M.D. Ala. 2012) (incident alleged to have occurred at Kilby 

Correctional Facility on April 20, 2011); Broadhead v. Norris, et al., Case No. 2:11-CV-490-MEFTFM (M.D. Ala. 2012) (incident alleged to have taken place on March 13, 2010, at Kilby 

Correctional Facility). Broadhead has filed numerous other civil actions with this court and the 

two other federal district courts of this state since 2011 raising a substantially similar excessive 

force claim, but at times identifying different dates, defendants and/or facilities where the alleged 

assault occurred.3 The core allegation of excessive force, however, remains constant in each case 

																																																												 2 This court may take judicial notice of its own records and the records of other federal courts. Nguyen v. 

United States, 556 F.3d 1244, 1259 n.7 (11th Cir. 2009); United States v. Rey, 811 F.2d 1453, 1457 n.5 

(11th Cir. 1987); United States v. Glover, 179 F.3d 1300, 1302 n.5 (11th Cir. 1999).

3

See Broadhead v. Hranday, et al., Case No. 2:16-CV-671-MHT-TFM (M.D. Ala.) (case pending on a 

Recommendation addressing claims alleged to have occurred at Bullock Correctional Facility in 2016);

Broadhead v. Lynn, et al., Case No. 2:16-CV-592-MHT-GMB (M.D. Ala. 2016); Broadhead v. Butler, et 

al., Case No. 2:16-CV-544-WKW-GMB (M.D. Ala. 2016); Broadhead v. Palmer, et al., Case No. 2:16-

CV-529-MHT-TFM (M.D. Ala.); Broadhead v. Halliam, et al., Case No. 2:16-CV-433-WHA-TFM

Broadhead v. Holcey, et al., Case No. 2:16-CV-384-WHA-TFM (M.D. 2016); Broadhead v. Roders, et al., 

Case No. 2:16-CV-371-WHA-TFM; (M.D. 2016); Broadhead v. Baldwin, et al., Case No. 2:16-CV-336-

WHA-WC (M.D. Ala. 2016); Broadhead v. Roders, et al., Case No. 2:16-CV-321-WHA-WC (M.D. Ala. 

2016); Broadhead v. Jenkins, et al., Case No. 2:16-CV-250-WHA-GMB (M.D. Ala. 2016); Broadhead v. 

Harris, et al., Case No. 2:16-CV-244-WHA-GMB (M.D. Ala. 2016); Broadhead v. Battle, et al., Case No. 

2:16-CV-219-WHA-GMB (M.D. Ala. 2016); Broadhead v. Smith, et al., Case No. 2:16-CV-81-WHAGMB (M.D. Ala. 2016); Broadhead v. Scott, et al., Case No. 2:16-CV-17-WHA-GMB (M.D. Ala. 2016); 

Broadhead v. Gasdon, et al., Case No. 2:15-CV-854-MHT-GMB (M.D. Ala. 2015); Broadhead v. Olds, et 

al., Case No. 2:15-CV-715-WKW-TFM (M.D. Ala. 2015); Broadhead v. Miree, et al., Case No. 2:14-CV677-MHT-TFM (M.D. Ala. 2014); Broadhead v. Rogers, et al., Case No. 2:14-CV-676-MHT-TFM (M.D. 

Case 2:16-cv-00694-WKW-TFM Document 2 Filed 09/07/16 Page 2 of 7
3

as does Broadhead’s claim that his attackers stated the use of force occurred due to his conviction 

for rape of an elderly woman. Additionally, in the vast majority of these cases, Broadhead 

describes suffering strikingly similar injuries during each alleged attack—a broken arm, staples in 

his head, loss of teeth and fractures to his feet and ankle areas. The United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Alabama determined that the physical altercation responsible for 

generating the voluminous number of cases filed by Broadhead occurred “on October 27, 2009, 

while [he was] incarcerated at . . . Donaldson[,]” and concluded that complaints “alleging that he 

was assaulted in exactly the same manner and sustained the same exact injuries [at different times 

and locations] are ‘wholly incredible’ and ‘delusional.’” Broadhead v. Northcutt, et al., Case No. 

4:09-CV-2512-SLB-RRA (N.D. Ala. 2011), Doc. 24 at 5 & 9 (Recommendation of the Magistrate

																																																												

Ala. 2014); Broadhead v. Miree, et al., Case No. 2:14-CV-641-MHT-TFM (M.D. Ala. 2014); Broadhead 

v. Olds, et al., Case No. 2:14-CV-393-MEF-TFM (M.D. Ala. 2014); Broadhead v. Olds, et al., Case No. 

2:14-CV-367-MEF-TFM (M.D. Ala. 2014) (incident in the preceding cases alleged to have occurred at 

either the Bullock or Donaldson Correctional Facility on unidentified dates in 2016, 2015 or 2014.); 

Broadhead v. Babers et al., Case No. 2:14-CV-210-MEF-TFM (M.D. Ala. 2014); Broadhead v. Babers et 

al., Case No. 2:14-CV-49-WHA-TFM (M.D. Ala. 2014) (incident in these two cases alleged to have 

occurred during a prior stint of confinement at Bullock Correctional Facility). Broadhead v. Hicks, et al., 

Case No. 2:12-CV-2369-JHH-RRA (N.D. Ala.); Broadhead v. Price, et al., Case No. 2:12-CV-2193-IPJRRA (N.D. Ala.); Broadhead v. Byres, et al., Case No. 4:12-CV-644-KOB-RRA (N.D. Ala.); Broadhead 

v. Baker, et al., Case No. 4:12-CV-585-SLB-RRA (N.D. Ala.); Broadhead v. Norris, et al., Case No. 2:11-

CV-490-MEF-TFM (M.D. Ala.); Broadhead v. Dozier, et al., Case No. 2:11-CV-489-MEF-TFM (M.D. 

Ala.); Broadhead v. Woodard, et al., Case No. 2:11-CV-341-MEF-TFM (M.D. Ala.); Broadhead v. Scott, 

et al., Case No. 4:10-CV-1152-WMA-RRA (N.D. Ala.); Broadhead v. Carter, et al., Case No. 4:10-CV1142-AKK-RRA (N.D. Ala.); Broadhead v. Miles, et al., Case No. 4:10-CV-1141-JHH-RRA (N.D. Ala.); 

Broadhead v. Scott, et al., Case No. 4:10-CV-1028-AKK-RRA (N.D. Ala.); Broadhead v. Malone, et al., 

Case No. 4:10-CV-806-JHH-RRA (N.D. Ala.); Broadhead v. McKay, et al., Case No. 4:10-CV-751-RRA 

(N.D. Ala.); Broadhead v. O'Brian, et al., Case No. 4:10-CV-475-JHH-RRA (N.D. Ala.); Broadhead v. 

Hopkins, et al., Case No. 4:10-CV-439-LSC-RRA (N.D. Ala.); Broadhead v. Wise, et al., Case No. 4:10-

CV-388-IPJ-RRA (N.D. Ala.); Broadhead v. Brown, et al., Case No. 4:10-CV-350-VEH-RRA (N.D. Ala.); 

Broadhead v. Swain, et al., Case No. 4:10-CV-113-AKK-RRA (N.D. Ala.); Broadhead v. Richburg, et al., 

Case No. 4:10-CV-54-IPJ-RRA (N.D. Ala.); Broadhead v. Kirrire, et al., Case No. 4:10-CV-53-VEH-RRA

(N.D. Ala.); Broadhead v. Swain, et al., Case No. 4:09-CV-2606-SLB-RRA (N.D. Ala.); Broadhead v. 

Northcutt, et al., Case No. 4:09-CV-2512-SLB-RRA (N.D. Ala.); Broadhead v. Michael, et al., Case No. 

4:09-CV-2473-VEH-RRA (N.D. Ala.); Broadhead v. Griggs, et al., Case No. 1:10-CV-241-CG-C (S.D. 

Ala.); Broadhead v. Heinz, et al., Case No. 1:10-CV-129-KD-B (S.D. Ala.); and Broadhead v. Mixon, et 

al., Case No. 1:10-CV-12-WS-C (S.D. Ala.).														

Case 2:16-cv-00694-WKW-TFM Document 2 Filed 09/07/16 Page 3 of 7
4

Judge), adopted as opinion of the court September 14, 2011 (Doc. 25) (quoting Denton v. 

Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992)).

III. DISCUSSION

Upon initiating this case Broadhead did not pay the $350.00 filing fee and $50.00

administrative fee nor did he apply for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. In cases with these 

deficiencies, the usual practice of this court is to enter an order advising Plaintiff he must pay the 

full filing fee and concomitant administrative fee or apply for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Under the directives of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), however, a prisoner may not 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.” 

Consequently, an inmate in violation of the “three strikes” provision of § 1915(g) who is not in 

“imminent danger” of suffering a serious physical injury must pay the filing fee upon initiation of 

his case. Dupree v. Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234, 1236 (11th Cir. 2002). 

Federal court records establish that Broadhead, while incarcerated or detained, has on at 

least four occasions had civil actions dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 as frivolous, malicious, 

for failure to state a claim, and/or for asserting claims against defendants immune from suitThe 

actions on which this court relies in finding a § 1915(g) violation by Broadhead are: (1) Broadhead 

v. Dozier, et al., Case No. 2:11-CV-489-MEF-TFM (M.D. Ala. 2012) (complaint malicious); (2) 

Broadhead v. O'Brian, et al., Case No. 4:10-CV-475-JHH-RRA (N.D. Ala. 2010) (complaint 

frivolous; (3) Broadhead v. Hopkins, et al., Case No. 4:10-CV-439-LSC-RRA (N.D. Ala. 2010) 

Case 2:16-cv-00694-WKW-TFM Document 2 Filed 09/07/16 Page 4 of 7
5

(complaint frivolous); and (4) Broadhead v. Kirrire, et al., Case No. 4:10-CV-53-VEH-RRA (N.D. 

Ala. 2010) (complaint frivolous). 

Upon review of the present complaint and the numerous other civil actions filed by 

Broadhead in this and the other federal courts of this state alleging a similar factual basis for relief,

the court finds Broadhead fails to demonstrate that he “is under imminent danger of serious 

physical injury” as required to meet the exception allowing circumvention of the directives in 28 

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

filed three or more frivolous lawsuits or appeals and seeks to proceed in forma pauperis must 

present facts sufficient to demonstrate “imminent danger” to circumvent application of the “three 

strikes” provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)); Lewis v. Sullivan, 279 F.3d 526, 531 (7th Cir. 2002) 

(The imminent danger exception is available only “[w]hen a threat or prison condition is real and 

proximate, and when the potential consequence is ‘serious physical injury....’”). Thus, even if the 

court provided Broadhead an opportunity to seek in forma pauperis status, and he then sought such 

treatment, he could not proceed in forma pauperis due to his violation of the “three strikes” 

provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Based on the foregoing, the court concludes this case is due to be summarily dismissed 

without prejudice as Broadhead failed to pay the requisite filing and administrative fees upon his 

initiation of this case. Dupree, 284 F.3d at 1236 (emphasis in original) (“[T]he proper procedure 

is for the district court to dismiss the complaint without prejudice when [an inmate is not entitled] 

to proceed in forma pauperis [due] to [violation of] the provisions of § 1915(g)” because the 

prisoner “must pay the filing fee at the time he initiates the suit.”); Vanderberg v. Donaldson, 259 

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

Case 2:16-cv-00694-WKW-TFM Document 2 Filed 09/07/16 Page 5 of 7
6

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge this case be 

DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to pay the filing and administrative fees upon 

his initiation of this case.

It is 

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 1) is DENIED.

It is further 

ORDERED that on or before September 23, 2016, Plaintiff may file an objection to the 

Recommendation. Any objection filed must specifically identify the factual findings and legal 

conclusions in the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation to which Plaintiff objects. Frivolous, 

conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. This 

Recommendation is not a final order and, therefore, it is not appealable.

Failure to file a written objection to the proposed findings and recommendations in the 

Magistrate Judge’s report shall bar a party from a de novo determination by the District Court of 

factual findings and legal issues covered in the report and shall “waive the right to challenge on 

appeal the district court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions” except upon 

grounds of plain error if necessary in the interests of justice. 11th Cir. R. 3-1; see Resolution Trust 

Co. v. Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F.2d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir. 1993); Henley v. Johnson, 885 

F.2d 790, 794 (11th Cir. 1989).

DONE, this 7th day of September 2016.

/s/Terry F. Moorer 

TERRY F. MOORER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-00694-WKW-TFM Document 2 Filed 09/07/16 Page 6 of 7
7

Case 2:16-cv-00694-WKW-TFM Document 2 Filed 09/07/16 Page 7 of 7