Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_12-cv-00621/USCOURTS-almd-2_12-cv-00621-0/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

NEDOLANDEZ LEON SANTOS, )

#140 896, )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:12-CV-621-TMH

) [WO]

CAPT. NATHANIEL LAWSON, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On July 19, 2012, Plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated at the Bullock Correctional Facility

located in Union Springs, 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-00621-TMH-TFM Document 3 Filed 07/26/12 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 had on at least three occasions 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) Santos v. Hutto, et al., Civil Action No. 2:09-CV-135-TMH (M.D. Ala. 2009);

(2) Santos v. Fleming, et al., Civil Action No. 2:09-CV-787-TMH (M.D. Ala. 2009); and (3)

Santos v. Flowers, et al., Civil Action No. 2:09-CV-1087-TMH (M.D. Ala. 2010).

3

The court has carefully reviewed the claims presented in the instant action. 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 Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie,

th

239 F.3d 307, 315 (3 Cir. 2001) (“By using the term ‘imminent,’ Congress indicated that

rd

it wanted to include a safety valve for the ‘three strikes’ rule to prevent impending harms, not

In evaluating whether Plaintiff has three strikes, the court may properly take judicial notice of 2

pleadings and orders in a previous case when the orders are public records and are “not subject to reasonable

dispute because they [are] capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy

could not reasonably be questioned.” Horne v. Potter, 392 Fed. Appx. 800, 802 (11 Cir. 2010). th

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

3

2

Case 2:12-cv-00621-TMH-TFM Document 3 Filed 07/26/12 Page 2 of 4
those harms that had already occurred.”).

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 July 19, 2012 (Doc. No. 2) is DENIED.

It isthe RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case be DISMISSED

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

case.

It is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff may file any objectionsto this Recommendation on or before

August 10, 2012. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the

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

3

Case 2:12-cv-00621-TMH-TFM Document 3 Filed 07/26/12 Page 3 of 4
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 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 26 day of July 2012.

th

/s/Terry F. Moorer

TERRY F. MOORER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 2:12-cv-00621-TMH-TFM Document 3 Filed 07/26/12 Page 4 of 4