Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-00930/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-00930-0/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

 __________________________________

JAMES FILLIP MOATS, #162 146 *

Plaintiff, * 

v. * CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:05-CV-930-T

 (WO) 

K. WILSON, et al., *

Defendants. *

 __________________________________ 

ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On September 29, 2005, James M oat s, a state inmate, 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 act ion 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

DISCUSSION 

Case 2:05-cv-00930-MHT-SRW Document 3 Filed 10/18/05 Page 1 of 4
Court records establish that Plaintiff has, on at least three occasions while he was

incarcerat ed or detained, had civil actions and appeals dismissed as frivolous, malicious,

or for failure to state a claim and/or for assert ing claims against defendants who were

immune from suit pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The cases on which t he

court relies in finding a violation of § 1915(g) include: (1) Moats v. Horm, et al., Civil

Action No. 1:93-CV-233-AH-C (S.D. Ala. 1993); (2) Moats v . Fincher, et al., Civil Action

No. 2:03-CV-398-MPM (N.D. Miss. 2004) (appeal frivolous); (3) Moats v. Whetstone, et al.,

Civil Action No. 1:03-CV-716-BH-B (S.D. Ala. 2004). 

In the instant civil action, Plaintiff complains that he is being denied adequate

medical care for blurred vision and has been refused proper glasses and eye care. The

claim before this court does 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). Medberry v. Butler, 185 F.3d 1189 (11th

Cir. 1999). 

 Based on the foregoing, the court concludes that Plaint iff's mot ion 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 $250.00 filing fee upon the initiation of t his 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 p rejudice

when it denies the prisoner leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to the provisions

Case 2:05-cv-00930-MHT-SRW Document 3 Filed 10/18/05 Page 2 of 4
of § 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 September 29, 2005 (Doc. No. 2) is DENIED. 

It is the RECOMMENDAT ION of t he 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 t hat t he parties shall file any objections to this Recommendation on or

before October 31, 2005. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the

Magistrat e 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 Recommendat ion is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not

appealable.

Failure to file writ t en 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

Case 2:05-cv-00930-MHT-SRW Document 3 Filed 10/18/05 Page 3 of 4
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 of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit 

handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981.

DONE, this 18th day of October, 2005.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00930-MHT-SRW Document 3 Filed 10/18/05 Page 4 of 4