Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_09-cv-00781/USCOURTS-almd-2_09-cv-00781-0/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

ALEXANDER BRINSON, #146986, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 2:09-CV-781-ID 

) [WO]

)

NURSE WILSON, et al., )

)

 Defendants. )

ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This civil action is before the court on a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint filed by

Alexander Brinson [“Brinson”], a state inmate and frequent federal litigant. In this

complaint, Brinson complains that health care personnel at the Easterling Correctional

Facility denied him adequate medical treatment during December of 2007. Plaintiff’s

Complaint - Court Doc. No. 1 at 3. 

Upon initiation of this case, Brinson filed a motion 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, 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

Case 2:09-cv-00781-ID-TFM Document 5 Filed 08/24/09 Page 1 of 5
In Rivera v. Allin, 144 F.3d 719, 731, cert. denied, 524 U.S. 978, 119 S.Ct. 27 (1998), the Court 1

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. 

The requisite dismissals are indicated on the docket sheets maintained by this court in the referenced

2

cases.

2

the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.”1

The records of this court establish that Brinson, while incarcerated or detained, has

on at least four occasions had civil actions 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 actions on which this court relies in

finding a § 1915(g) violation are: (1) Brinson v. Frith, et al., Case No. 2:97-CV-1022-

WHA-JLC (M.D. Ala. 1997), (2) Brinson v. Nix, et al., Case No.2:97-CV-906-WHA-JLC

(M.D. Ala. 1997), (3) Brinson v. Jones, et al., Case No. 2:95-CV-1548-ID-JLC (M.D. Ala.

1996), and (4) Brinson v. Jones, et al., Civil Action No. 2:95-CV-1547-MHT-JLC (M.D.

Ala. 1996).2

In the instant complaint, Brinson presents allegations regarding medical treatment

provided to him during December of 2007. Specifically, Brinson maintains health care

personnel failed to properly monitor his medication intake thereby allowing him to hoard

Case 2:09-cv-00781-ID-TFM Document 5 Filed 08/24/09 Page 2 of 5
3

medication and attempt suicide byoverdose on December 11, 2007. Plaintiff’s Complaint -

Court Doc. No. 1 at 3. 

After thorough review of the claims presented byBrinson, it is clear that such claims

do not entitle him to circumvent the directives of § 1915(g) as the allegations made the

basis of the pending complaint relate to medical treatment provided in December of 2007

and fail to establish an “imminent danger of serious physical injury” to Brinson 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 (11 Cir. th

1999) (a prisoner who has filed three or more frivolous lawsuits and seeks to proceed in

forma pauperis must allege a present “imminent danger of serious physical injury” to evade

application of the “three strikes” provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)); Lewis v. Sullivan, 279

F.3d 526, 531 (7 Cir. 2002) (The imminent danger exception is available only “[w]hen a th

threat or prison condition is real and proximate, and when the potential consequence is

‘serious physical injury....’”). 

Based on the foregoing, the court concludes that Brinson’s motion for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis is due to be denied and this case dismissed without prejudice

as Brinson failed to pay the requisite filing fee upon initiation of this case. Dupree v.

Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234, 1236 (11 Cir. 2002) (emphasis in original) (“[T]he proper

th

procedure is for the district court to dismiss the complaint without prejudice when it denies

Case 2:09-cv-00781-ID-TFM Document 5 Filed 08/24/09 Page 3 of 5
4

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.”). 

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is 

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

Alexander Brinson (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 September 10, 2009 the parties may file objections to

this 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 determination by

the District Court of issues addressed in the Recommendation and shall bar the party from

attacking on appeal the factual findings contained in the Recommendation accepted or

adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice.

Case 2:09-cv-00781-ID-TFM Document 5 Filed 08/24/09 Page 4 of 5
5

Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5 Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc.,

th

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

1981, en 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 24th day of August, 2009.

 /s/Terry F. Moorer 

TERRY F. MOORER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-00781-ID-TFM Document 5 Filed 08/24/09 Page 5 of 5