Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_10-cv-00400/USCOURTS-almd-2_10-cv-00400-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

In Rivera v. Allin, 144 F.3d 719, 731 (11th Cir. 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 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

 _____________________________

HENRY JOINER, #140 755 *

Plaintiff, *

 v. * 2:10-CV-400-TMH

 (WO) 

COMMISSIONER, RICHARD F. *

ALLEN, et al.,

*

Defendants.

 _____________________________ 

ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On May 10, 2010, Plaintiff, a state 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

Case 2:10-cv-00400-TMH-TFM Document 3 Filed 06/04/10 Page 1 of 5
2

Available at http://pacer.uspci.uscourts.gov/.

-2-

DISCUSSION 

The undersigned takes judicial notice of federal court records2

 which establish that

Plaintiff, while incarcerated or detained, has on at least three occasions had 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) Joiner v. Johnson, et al., Civil Action No. 7:99-849-SCP (N.D. Ala. 1999); (2)

Joiner v. Hayes, et al., Civil Action No. 2:05-CV-478-MEF (M.D. Ala. 2005); and (3)

Joiner v. Montgomery Police Dept., et al., Civil Action No. 2:05-CV-661 (M.D. Ala. 2005).

The court has carefully reviewed the claims presented in the instant action. Plaintiff

complains about events which occurred in April 2009 with regard to a search and seizure of

his mail, a denial and/or delay of adequate medical care, and imposition of sanctions as a

result of disciplinary action brought against him for failing to obey the direct orders of prison

officials. (Doc. No.1 and Attachments.) 

 The claims before this court do not allege nor in any way indicate that Plaintiff “is

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

exception to the application of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). “A prisoner’s allegation that he faced

imminent danger sometime in the past is an insufficient basis to allow him to proceed in

forma pauperis pursuant to the imminent danger exception to the statute.” Medberry v.

Case 2:10-cv-00400-TMH-TFM Document 3 Filed 06/04/10 Page 2 of 5
-3-

Butler, 185 F.3d 1189 (11th Cir. 1999). In order to come within the “imminent danger”

exception, the Eleventh Circuit requires “specific allegations of present imminent danger that

may result in serious physical harm.” Skillern v. Jackson, No. 606cv49, 2006 WL 1687752,

at *2 (S.D. Ga. June 14, 2006) (citing Brown v. Johnson, 387 F.3d 1344, 1349 (11th

Cir.2004)). The “imminent danger” exception is available “for genuine emergencies,” where

“time is pressing” and “a threat . . . is real and proximate.”Lewis v. Sullivan, 279 F.3d 526,

531 (7th Cir. 2002). General and conclusory allegations not grounded in specific facts

cannot invoke the § 1915(g) exception. Margiotti v. Nichols, 2006 WL 1174350 at *2

(N.D.Fla. May 2, 2006). 

 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, 185 F.3d 1189. 

 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 (11th Cir. 2002) (emphasis in original)

(“[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

Case 2:10-cv-00400-TMH-TFM Document 3 Filed 06/04/10 Page 3 of 5
-4-

§ 1915(g)” because the prisoner “must pay the filing fee at the time he initiates the suit.”).

CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, it is 

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

on May 10, 2010 (Doc. No. 2) is DENIED. 

It is the 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 the parties shall file any objections to this Recommendation on or

before June 18, 2010. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the

Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which a party objects. 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 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

Case 2:10-cv-00400-TMH-TFM Document 3 Filed 06/04/10 Page 4 of 5
-5-

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 4th day of June, 2010.

 /s/ Terry F. Moorer 

TERRY F. MOORER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:10-cv-00400-TMH-TFM Document 3 Filed 06/04/10 Page 5 of 5