Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_09-cv-00251/USCOURTS-almd-2_09-cv-00251-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

James filed a previous complaint against Richard Jamieson in which he challenged the constitutionality

of this same incident of force. James v. Jamieson, Civil Action No. 2:01-CV-557-CSC (M.D. Ala. 2003). In such

action, a jury empaneled by this court rendered a verdict in favor of defendant Jamieson. Id. at Court Doc. No.

74. 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

MYRON JAMES, #144470, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIV. ACT. NO. 2:09-CV-251-TMH

)

RICHARD JAMIESON, 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 Myron

James [“James”], a state inmate and frequent federal litigant, on March 25, 2009. In

this complaint, James alleges correctional officers at the Ventress Correctional Facility

subjected him to excessive force on February 21, 2001.1

 

Upon initiation of this case, James filed an application for leave to proceed in

forma pauperis pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Application to

Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees - Court Doc. No. 2. However, under the

directives of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner is not allowed to bring a civil action or

Case 2:09-cv-00251-TMH-CSC Document 3 Filed 03/27/09 Page 1 of 5
2

In Rivera v. Allin, 144 F.3d 719, 731, cert. denied, 524 U.S. 978, 119 S.Ct. 27 (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, 127 S.Ct. 910, 921 (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, 127 S.Ct. at 921. 

2

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.”2

 

II. DISCUSSION

 The records of the federal courts of this state establish that James, while

incarcerated or detained, has on at least five occasions had civil actions dismissed as

frivolous, malicious, for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted 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 this court relies in finding a

violation of § 1915(g) are: (1) James v. Lampkin, et al., Civil Action No. 2:96-CV1967-ELN-TMP (N.D. Ala. 1996); (2) James v. Donaldson Correctional Facility,

Civil Action No. 2:96-CV-1111-SCP-PWG (N.D. Ala. 1996); (3) James v. Hightower,

Case 2:09-cv-00251-TMH-CSC Document 3 Filed 03/27/09 Page 2 of 5
3

James is now incarcerated at the Holman Correctional Facility.

3

et al., Civil Action No. 2:95-CV-1625-JHH-PWG (N.D. Ala. 1995); (4) James v.

Harrelson, et al., Civil Action No. 2:92-CV-607-ID-CSC (M.D. Ala. 1992); and (5)

James v. Hunt, et al., Civil Action No. 1:91-CV-784-BH-S (S.D. Ala. 1993). 

In the complaint now before the court, James complains that correctional

officials used excessive force against him on February 21, 2001 during his previous

confinement at the Ventress Correctional Facility.3

 The allegations made the basis of

the instant complaint fail to demonstrate that James 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, 1193 (11th Cir. 1999) (a prisoner who has filed three or more

frivolous lawsuits and seeks to proceed in forma pauperis must allege a present

“imminent danger” to circumvent application of the “three strikes” provision of 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g)). Based on the foregoing, the court concludes that James’ motion

for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is due to be denied and this case dismissed

without prejudice as James failed to pay the requisite filing fee upon initiation of this

cause of action. Dupree v. Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234, 1236 (11th Cir. 2002) (emphasis

in original) (“[T]he proper procedure is for the district court to dismiss the complaint

Case 2:09-cv-00251-TMH-CSC Document 3 Filed 03/27/09 Page 3 of 5
4

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.”). 

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is 

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

Myron James (Court Doc. No. 2) be and is hereby DENIED. Additionally, it is the

RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that 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 on or before April 9, 2009 the parties may file objections to the

Recommendation. 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 advisements in

the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation shall bar the party from a de novo

Case 2:09-cv-00251-TMH-CSC Document 3 Filed 03/27/09 Page 4 of 5
5

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 (5th Cir. 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 (11th Cir. 1981, en banc), adopting as binding precedent all

decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on

September 30, 1981.

Done this 27th day of March, 2009.

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-00251-TMH-CSC Document 3 Filed 03/27/09 Page 5 of 5