Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_08-cv-00333/USCOURTS-alsd-1_08-cv-00333-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

In light of this Report and Recommendation, the Order dated

June 12, 2008 (Doc. 3) is RESCINDED and the pleading entitled

“Default Judgment, Freed, Monetary Relief, Requested”

filed on June 16, 2008 and docketed as a Motion for Default

(Doc. 5) is MOOT.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MARCUS ORLANDO TATE, :

a/k/a MARCUS ORLANDO TAITE,

a/k/a DR. ELIJAH JOSHUA :

MUHAMMAD, II, a/k/a DRELIJAH

JOSHUA MUHAMMAD, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 08-0333-BH-M

U.S. MAGISTRATE SONJA F. BIVINS,:

Defendant. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This § 1983 action, filed by an Alabama prison inmate

proceeding pro se and seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis,

was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.2(c)(4) for appropriate action. 

It is the undersigned’s recommendation that Plaintiff’s action be

dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).1 

Section 1915(g) provides: 

In no event shall a prisoner bring a

civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil

action or proceeding under this section [28

U.S.C. § 1915] if the prisoner has, on 3 or

more prior occasions, while incarcerated or

detained in any facility, brought an action

Case 1:08-cv-00333-WS-M Document 6 Filed 06/19/08 Page 1 of 5
2

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.

During the screening of this action under 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B), the Court discovered that Plaintiff previously had

at least three actions that were dismissed on grounds enumerated

in § 1915(g). A review of the records of the United States

District Court for the Southern, Middle, and Northern Districts

of Alabama reflects that the following actions brought by

Plaintiff were dismissed on one of these grounds, to-wit: Marcus

Orlando Taite v. Haley, et al., CA 02-0034-MHT-CSC (M.D. Ala.

Apr. 18, 2002); Marcus O. Tate, et al. v. Keahey, et al., CA 02-

0734-BH-S (S.D. Ala. Feb. 11, 2003); and Marcus Tate v. Lawson,

CA 06-01779-RBP (N.D. Ala. Nov. 17, 2006). 

In addition, to these actions, Plaintiff, while a prisoner,

filed Drelijah Joshua Muhammad, II v. McIntyre, et al., CA 06-

0228-BH-C (S.D. Ala. Oct. 17, 2006), which was dismissed for lack

of subject matter jurisdiction. The dismissal occurred in this

manner because Plaintiff paid the filing fee for his § 1983

action and sued non-state actors, which placed his action beyond

the purview of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and § 1915A. Nonetheless, his

Complaint was found to be without legal merit. By all reasoning,

this action meets the criteria of Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.

319, 109 S.Ct. 1827 (1989), for a frivolous action - that a

Case 1:08-cv-00333-WS-M Document 6 Filed 06/19/08 Page 2 of 5
2

Civil Action 06-0315-WS-B was received by the Court on May

18, 2006. At that time Plaintiff had not accumulated “three

strikes.”

3

frivolous action is one that is “based on indisputably meritless

legal theory” or “lacks an arguable basis in law.” Id. at 327,

328, 109 S.Ct. at 1827, 1833. Therefore, it should be eligible

for consideration as a “strike,” but it need not be since

Plaintiff already has three dismissals that satisfy § 1915(g)’s

requirement of three dismissals.

Furthermore, Plaintiff filed this action on or about June

11, 2008, without paying the filing fee, knowing that he would be

subject to § 1915(g). This Court and the Court for the Middle

District of Alabama previously entered Orders applying § 1915(g)

to his actions and then dismissing the actions, Tate v. Bass, et

al., CA 07-0305-KD-C (S.D. Ala. June 22, 2007) and Tate v. Bass,

CA 07-1093-MHT (M.D. Ala. Jan. 15, 2008). 

In the present action, Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) does

not indicate at the time of filing that Plaintiff was “under

imminent danger of serious physical injury.” Medberry v. Butler,

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

must face imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time

the complaint is filed, not at a prior time). Rather, the

Complaint reflects that Plaintiff is complaining about a ruling

entered by Magistrate Judge Bivins of this Court in his action on

her docket, Tate v. Dale, CA 06-0315-WS-B (pending).2 Therefore,

Case 1:08-cv-00333-WS-M Document 6 Filed 06/19/08 Page 3 of 5
4

Plaintiff’s Complaint does not meet § 1915(g)’s “imminent danger

of serious physical injury” exception.

Because Plaintiff cannot avail himself of § 1915(g)’s

exception and did not pay the $350.00 filing fee at the time he

filed this action, Plaintiff’s action is due to be dismissed

without prejudice. Dupree v. Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234, 1236 (11th

Cir. 2002) (holding that an action must be dismissed without

prejudice when an inmate who is subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)

does not pay the full filing fee at the time he initiates the

action); Vanderberg v. Donaldson, 259 F.3d 1321, 1324 (11th Cir.)

(holding that the filing fee paid must be paid by an inmate

subject to § 1915(g) at the time an action is commenced), cert.

denied, 535 U.S. 976 (2002). Accordingly, it is recommended that

this action be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g).

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S EXPLANATION OF PROCEDURAL RIGHTS

AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION

AND FINDINGS CONCERNING NEED FOR TRANSCRIPT

1. Objection. Any party who objects to this recommendation or

anything in it must, within ten days of the date of service of

this document, file specific written objections with the clerk of

court. Failure to do so will bar a de novo determination by the

district judge of anything in the recommendation and will bar an

attack, on appeal, of the factual findings of the magistrate

judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d

736, 738 (11th Cir. 1988); Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404

(5th Cir. Unit B, 1982)(en banc). The procedure for challenging

the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge is set

out in more detail in SD ALA LR 72.4 (June 1, 1997), which

provides that:

A party may object to a recommendation entered by a

Case 1:08-cv-00333-WS-M Document 6 Filed 06/19/08 Page 4 of 5
5

magistrate judge in a dispositive matter, that is, a

matter excepted by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), by filing

a “Statement of Objection to Magistrate Judge’s

Recommendation” within ten days after being served with

a copy of the recommendation, unless a different time

is established by order. The statement of objection

shall specify those portions of the recommendation to

which objection is made and the basis for the

objection. The objecting party shall submit to the

district judge, at the time of filing the objection, a

brief setting forth the party’s arguments that the

magistrate judge’s recommendation should be reviewed de

novo and a different disposition made. It is

insufficient to submit only a copy of the original

brief submitted to the magistrate judge, although a

copy of the original brief may be submitted or referred

to and incorporated into the brief in support of the

objection. Failure to submit a brief in support of the

objection may be deemed an abandonment of the

objection.

A magistrate judge’s recommendation cannot be appealed to a

Court of Appeals; only the district judge’s order or judgment can

be appealed.

2. Transcript (applicable where proceedings tape recorded). 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), the

magistrate judge finds that the tapes and original records in

this action are adequate for purposes of review. Any party

planning to object to this recommendation, but unable to pay the

fee for a transcript, is advised that a judicial determination

that transcription is necessary is required before the United

States will pay the cost of the transcript.

DONE this 18th day of June, 2008.

s/BERT W. MILLING, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00333-WS-M Document 6 Filed 06/19/08 Page 5 of 5