Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_15-cv-00631/USCOURTS-alsd-1_15-cv-00631-0/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 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JAMES BROADHEAD,

AIS #224802

Plaintiff,

:

:

:

:

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 15-631-KD-M

:

D. ROGERS, et. al.,

Defendants.

:

:

:

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, an Alabama prison inmate proceeding pro se, 

filed a Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1).1 This 

action has been referred to the undersigned for a report 

and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and 

S.D. Ala. GenLR 72. For the reasons set forth below, this 

action is due to be dismissed without prejudice, prior to 

service of process, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Standard of Review

Under the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”),

prisoners are permitted to file only three meritless suits 

																																																							 1 Plaintiff failed to pay the filing fee or submit an application to 

proceed in forma pauperis. Normally, the court would enter a Notice of 

Deficient Pleading, advising Plaintiff that he must either pay the full 

filing fee or submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis. 

However, because Plaintiff’s Complaint in this action is subject to the 

Prison Litigation Reform Act, dismissal is warranted. 

Case 1:15-cv-00631-KD-M Document 2 Filed 01/20/16 Page 1 of 7
2

in the in forma pauperis status. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

Specifically, § 1915(g) states in pertinent part: 

In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action 

or appeal 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 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. 

Id. This section, known as the “three-strike rule”, 

mandates that once a prisoner has three actions dismissed 

for one of the reasons stated above, “he is not entitled to 

proceed in forma pauperis . . . unless he can demonstrate 

that he meets the ‘imminent danger’ requirement of § 

1915(g).” Pointer v. Marc, 2011 WL 847012, at *1 (S.D. 

Ohio Mar. 8, 2011). “[T]he PLRA revokes [in forma 

pauperis] privileges and requires the prisoner to pay the 

same filing fees that ordinary citizens must file upon 

commencement of a suit.” Hubbard v. Haley, 262 F.3d 1194, 

1996 (11th Cir. 2001). “The purpose of this section is to 

curb abusive prisoner litigation by requiring a prisoner 

who has had three actions or appeals dismissed as meritless 

to pay the full filing fee when his next action is filed.” 

Dupree v. Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234, 1236 (11th Cir. 2002). 

Case 1:15-cv-00631-KD-M Document 2 Filed 01/20/16 Page 2 of 7
3

DISCUSSION

After reviewing the records of the United States 

District Courts for the Southern, Middle, and Northern 

Districts of Alabama, the Court discovered that Plaintiff 

has had at least three2 actions or appeals that were 

dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state 

a claim upon which relief can be granted, namely, Broadhead 

v. Hopkins, et al., CA 10-0439-LSC-RRA (N.D. Ala. June 18, 

2010); Broadhead v. McConuco, et al., CA 09-0384-CB-N (S.D. 

Ala. May 21, 2010); Broadhead v. Kirrie et al., CA 10-0053-

VEH-RRA (N.D. Ala. Nov. 30, 2010); and Broadhead v. O’Brian 

et al., CA 10-0475-JHH-RRA (N.D. Ala. June 22, 2010). 

Therefore, the present action falls within the scope of 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(g).3 

As a result, the only way for Plaintiff to avoid the 

dismissal of the present action under § 1915(g) is for him 

to show that he was “under imminent danger of serious 

																																																							 2

 A review of the relevant court dockets indicates that Plaintiff has 

actually filed dozens of complaints during his incarceration, many of 

which allege nearly the exact same factual allegations and injuries as 

those which Plaintiff has asserted in the instant action. 3 Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to provide any information relating to his 

other lawsuits, despite the requirement that he list all such actions.

The failure to list prior cases is considered sanctionable conduct 

warranting the dismissal of an action for an abuse of process and the 

counting of the dismissal as a strike. Hill v. Bishop, 2012 WL 

1698382, at *2-3 (S.D. Ala. Apr. 12, 2012) (reviewing prisoner cases 

that were dismissed as a sanction for the plaintiff’s failure to list 

his prior cases because of the plaintiff’s failure was an abuse of 

process). 

Case 1:15-cv-00631-KD-M Document 2 Filed 01/20/16 Page 3 of 7
4

physical injury” at the time of the complaint’s filing. 

See Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307, 315 (3d Cir. 

2001)(stating that, “[b]y using the term ‘imminent,’ 

Congress indicated that it wanted to include a safety valve 

for the ‘three-strikes’ rule to prevent impending harms, 

not those harms that had already occurred.”); Brown v. 

Johnson, 387 F.3d 1344, 1349 (11th Cir. 2004)(concluding 

that a prisoner must allege a present imminent danger, as 

opposed to a past danger, to proceed under section 

1915(g)”); Medberry v. Butler, 185 F.3d 1189, 1193 (11th 

Cir. 1999)(the imminent danger of serious physical injury 

faced must be at the time the complaint is filed, not at a 

prior time). 

In a prisoner action, the complaint is filed when a 

“prisoner deliver[s] it to the prisoner authorities for 

forwarding to the court clerk.” Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 

266 (1988). The filing of this action appears to have 

occurred between December 6, 2015, when Plaintiff signed 

and dated the Complaint (Doc. 1 at 8), and December 14, 

2015, when it was docketed by the Court. (Doc. 1).4

																																																							 4 For the purposes of this Report and Recommendation, the Court will use 

December 6, 2015, as the date of the filing.

Case 1:15-cv-00631-KD-M Document 2 Filed 01/20/16 Page 4 of 7
5

In assessing whether Plaintiff satisfies the exception 

to § 1915(g), “the issue is whether his complaint, as a 

whole, alleges imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 

Brown v. Johnson, 387 F.3d at 1350. A plaintiff “must 

allege and provide specific fact allegations of an ongoing 

serious physical injury, or a pattern of misconduct 

evidencing the likelihood of imminent serious physical 

injury, and vague allegations of harm and unspecific 

references to injury are insufficient.” Ball v. Allen, 2007 

WL 484547, at *1 (S.D. Ala. Feb. 8, 2007)(unpublished) 

(citations and quotation marks omitted). 

According to the Complaint, Plaintiff contends his 

constitutional rights were violated based on an assault by 

Defendants wherein Plaintiff “was for ws (sic) to the 

ground from ablow (sic) to my testicle” and “while on the 

ground I was kick-ed (sic) again and again to the testicle 

[...] out of hate be douse (sic) of my conviction.” (Doc. 1 

at 5.) The Complaint goes on to allege that Plaintiff 

suffered a broken elbow, a “burst” head, and broken teeth 

as a result of his assault. (Id. at 4). Plaintiff’s 

Complaint does not state when this alleged assault occurred 

and fails to provide any details as to the circumstances

leading up to the alleged assault or the roles of the

Defendants in the assault. It also fails to provide any 

Case 1:15-cv-00631-KD-M Document 2 Filed 01/20/16 Page 5 of 7
6

factual basis from which it could be or should be concluded 

that Plaintiff was in imminent danger of serious injury on 

the date that his Complaint was filed. To the contrary, 

Plaintiff’s Complaint only describes a past event, with 

insufficient detail, that does not hint at a continuing or 

ongoing threat of serious injury. 

As a result, the Court finds that Plaintiff does not 

satisfy the exception to § 1915(g).

CONCLUSION

Based on Plaintiff’s failure to pay the full filing 

fee for this action or to satisfy § 1915(g)’s exception and 

for the reasons set forth herein above, this action is due 

to be dismissed without prejudice, prior to service of 

process, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO FILE OBJECTIONS 

A copy of this report and recommendation shall be 

served on all parties in the manner provided by law. Any 

party who objects to this recommendation or anything in it 

must, within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of 

this document, file specific written objections with the 

Clerk of this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED.R.CIV.P. 

72(b); S.D. ALA. GenLR 72. The parties should note that 

under Eleventh Circuit Rule 3-1, “[a] party failing to 

object to a magistrate judge's findings or recommendations 

Case 1:15-cv-00631-KD-M Document 2 Filed 01/20/16 Page 6 of 7
7

contained in a report and recommendation in accordance with 

the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the right to 

challenge on appeal the district court's order based on 

unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions if the party 

was informed of the time period for objecting and the 

consequences on appeal for failing to object. In the

absence of a proper objection, however, the court may 

review on appeal for plain error if necessary in the 

interests of justice.” 11th Cir. R. 3-1. In order to be 

specific, an objection must identify the specific finding 

or recommendation to which objection is made, state the 

basis for the objection, and specify the place in the 

Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation where the 

disputed determination is found. An objection that merely 

incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before 

the Magistrate Judge is not specific. 

DONE this 20th day of January, 2016.

s/BERT W. MILLING, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00631-KD-M Document 2 Filed 01/20/16 Page 7 of 7