Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00081/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00081-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

JAMES M. BROADHEAD, #224802, ) 

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

 v. ) CASE NO. 2:16-CV-81-WHA 

)

NURSE SMITH, et al., )

)

 Defendants. )

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 presently incarcerated at Donaldson 

Correctional Facility (“Donaldson”). In this complaint, Broadhead alleges that he was 

recently subjected to the use of excessive force at Donaldson. Specifically, Broadhead 

asserts that correctional officers “beat and struck [him] with security sticks” over 850 

times resulting in his placement “in[to] free world hospital, [Cooper Green Hospital in 

Birmingham, Alabama,] where he had a broken arm in (4) places and staples in the head 

and (4) or (5) teeth[] was knocked out as there was threats on the plaintiff life the plaintiff 

was transferred for his safety as the plaintiff had fracture to his feet and ankle area....” 

Doc. 1 at 5. Broadhead seeks compensatory and punitive damages from the defendants 

for the alleged violations of his constitutional rights. Doc. 1. 

Case 2:16-cv-00081-WHA-GMB Document 2 Filed 02/09/16 Page 1 of 8
2

II. RELEVANT CASE HISTORY1

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

strikingly similar claims for relief, i.e., that he was struck with security sticks by 

correctional officers over 900 times, transferred to Cooper Green Hospital with “a broken 

arm in (3) places, and staples in the head, and (3) or (4) teeth[] was knocked out, as there 

was threats on the plaintiff life the plaintiff was transferred for his safety as the plaintiff 

had fracture to his feet and ankle area....” Broadhead v. Dozier, et al., Case No. 2:11-

CV-489-MEF-TFM (M.D. Ala. 2012), Doc. 1 at 4. In this previous cause of action, 

Broadhead stated the assault occurred at Kilby Correctional Facility on June 17, 2011, 

whereas in the instant complaint he maintains the assault recently occurred at Donaldson 

Correctional Facility. Additionally, Broadhead filed two other civil actions with this 

court in 2011 alleging substantially similar claims for relief with the only differences in 

each of these 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 on April 20, 2011); Broadhead v. 

Norris, et al., Case No. 2:11-CV-490-MEF-TFM (M.D. Ala. 2012) (incident alleged to 

have occurred on March 13, 2010 at Kilby). Moreover, Broadhead has filed ten

additional civil actions with this court since 2011 raising substantially similar claims for 

relief but again identifying different dates, defendants and/or facilities where the alleged 

 1 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)

Case 2:16-cv-00081-WHA-GMB Document 2 Filed 02/09/16 Page 2 of 8
3

assault occurred. See 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-CV-677-MHT-TFM (M.D. Ala. 

2014); Broadhead v. Rogers, et al., Case No. 2:14-CV-676-MHT-TFM (M.D. 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) and

Broadhead v. Olds, et al., Case No. 2:14-CV-367-MEF-TFM (M.D. Ala. 2014) (incident 

alleged in each of the preceding cases to have occurred at Donaldson on unidentified 

dates in both 2015 and 2014); Broadhead v. Babers et al., Case No. 2:14-CV-210-MEFTFM (M.D. Ala. 2014); Broadhead v. Babers et al., Case No. 2:14-CV-49-WHA-TFM

(M.D. Ala. 2014) (incident alleged to have occurred during a prior unidentified stint of 

confinement at Bullock County Correctional Facility).

The records for the other federal courts of this state likewise indicate that 

Broadhead has filed numerous other cases alleging a nearly identical claim of excessive 

force and asserting injuries consistent with those set forth in the instant complaint.2

 2 See Broadhead v. Hicks, et al., Case No. 2:12-CV-2369-JHH-RRA (N.D. Ala. 2012); Broadhead v. Price, et 

al., Case No. 2:12-CV-2193-IPJ-RRA (N.D. Ala. 2012); Broadhead v. Byres, et al., Case No. 4:12-CV-644-

KOB-RRA (N.D. Ala. 2012); Broadhead v. Baker, et al., Case No. 4:12-CV-585-SLB-RRA (N.D. Ala. 2012); 

Broadhead v. Norris, et al., Case No. 2:11-CV-490-MEF-TFM (M.D. Ala. 2012); Broadhead v. Dozier, et al., 

Case No. 2:11-CV-489-MEF-TFM (M.D. Ala. 2012); Broadhead v. Woodard, et al., Case No. 2:11-CV-341-

MEF-TFM (M.D. Ala. 2012); Broadhead v. Scott, et al., Case No. 4:10-CV-1152-WMA-RRA (N.D. Ala.

2010); Broadhead v. Carter, et al., Case No. 4:10-CV-1142-AKK-RRA (N.D. Ala. 2010); Broadhead v. Miles, 

et al., Case No. 4:10-CV-1141-JHH-RRA (N.D. Ala. 2010); Broadhead v. Scott, et al., Case No. 4:10-CV1028-AKK-RRA (N.D. Ala. 2010); Broadhead v. Malone, et al., Case No. 4:10-CV-806-JHH-RRA (N.D. Ala.

2010); Broadhead v. McKay, et al., Case No. 4:10-CV-751-RRA (N.D. Ala. 2010); Broadhead v. O’Brian, et 

al., Case No. 4:10-CV-475-JHH-RRA (N.D. Ala. 2010); Broadhead v. Hopkins, et al., Case No. 4:10-CV-439-

Case 2:16-cv-00081-WHA-GMB Document 2 Filed 02/09/16 Page 3 of 8
4

Although these cases also differ in various details—the correctional facility at which the 

incident occurred, the date of the incident, the correctional officers involved, or the 

precise number of times officers struck Broadhead with security sticks—the core 

allegation of excessive force remains constant in each case, as does Broadhead’s claim 

that his attackers told him the use of force occurred due to his conviction for rape of an 

elderly woman. In addition, Broadhead asserts that he suffered 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—and consistently maintains that after each purported attack he 

was transported to Cooper Green Hospital for treatment of his injuries. 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, adopted as opinion of the court 

 

LSC-RRA (N.D. Ala. 2010); Broadhead v. Wise, et al., Case No. 4:10-CV-388-IPJ-RRA (N.D. Ala. 2010); 

Broadhead v. Brown, et al., Case No. 4:10-CV-350-VEH-RRA (N.D. Ala. 2010); Broadhead v. Swain, et al., 

Case No. 4:10-CV-113-AKK-RRA (N.D. Ala. 2010); Broadhead v. Richburg, et al., Case No. 4:10-CV-54-

IPJ-RRA (N.D. Ala. 2010); Broadhead v. Kirrire, et al., Case No. 4:10-CV-53-VEH-RRA (N.D. Ala. 2010); 

Broadhead v. Swain, et al., Case No. 4:09-CV-2606-SLB-RRA (N.D. Ala. 2010); Broadhead v. Northcutt, et 

al., Case No. 4:09-CV-2512-SLB-RRA (N.D. Ala. 2011); Broadhead v. Michael, et al., Case No. 4:09-CV2473-VEH-RRA (N.D. Ala. 2010); Broadhead v. Griggs, et al., Case No. 1:10-CV-241-CG-C (S.D. Ala.

2011); Broadhead v. Heinz, et al., Case No. 1:10-CV-129-KD-B (S.D. Ala. 2010); Broadhead v. Mixon, et al., 

Case No. 1:10-CV-12-WS-C (S.D. Ala. 2010). 

Case 2:16-cv-00081-WHA-GMB Document 2 Filed 02/09/16 Page 4 of 8
5

on 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 filing fee and attendant 

$50 administrative fee nor did he file an application for leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis. In cases with these deficiencies, the usual practice of this court is to enter an 

order advising the plaintiff that he must pay the full filing fee and concomitant 

administrative fee or submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis. 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 danger of serious 

physical injury.”3 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 

 3 In Rivera v. Allin, 144 F.3d 719, 731 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 978 (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-00081-WHA-GMB Document 2 Filed 02/09/16 Page 5 of 8
6

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 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 by the plaintiff 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) (complaint frivolous); and (4) Broadhead v. Kirrire, et al., Case No. 4:10-CV53-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 the same factual 

basis for relief, the court finds that Broadhead fails to demonstrate that he “is under 

imminent danger of serious physical injury” as is required to meet the exception allowing 

circumvention of the directives contained in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Medberry v. Butler, 

185 F.3d 1189, 1193 (11th Cir. 1999) (holding that 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. 

Case 2:16-cv-00081-WHA-GMB Document 2 Filed 02/09/16 Page 6 of 8
7

2002) (noting that 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 Broadhead sought in forma pauperis status in this case, he 

could not proceed due to his violation of the “three strikes” provision of 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(g).

Based on the foregoing analysis, the court concludes that the instant case is due to 

be summarily dismissed without prejudice. Dupree, 284 F.3d at 1236 (“[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 the provisions of § 1915(g)” 

because he “must pay the filing fee at the time he initiates the suit.”); Vanderberg v. 

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

IV. CONCLUSION

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

case be dismissed without prejudice for the plaintiff’s failure to pay the filing and 

administrative fees upon initiation of this case. 

It is further ORDERED that on or before February 23, 2016 the plaintiff may file 

objections to the Recommendation. The plaintiff must specifically identify the factual 

findings and legal conclusions in the Recommendation to which objection is made; 

frivolous, conclusive, or general objections will not be considered. Failure to file written 

objections to the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations in accordance with 

the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) shall bar a de novo determination by the District 

Case 2:16-cv-00081-WHA-GMB Document 2 Filed 02/09/16 Page 7 of 8
8

Court of legal and factual issues covered in the Recommendation and waives the right of 

the plaintiff to challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on unobjected-to 

factual and legal conclusions accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon 

grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 

1982); 11th Cir. R. 3-1; see Stein v. Lanning Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 

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

DONE this 9th day of February, 2016.

 /s/ Gray M. Borden 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-00081-WHA-GMB Document 2 Filed 02/09/16 Page 8 of 8