Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_11-cv-00722/USCOURTS-almd-2_11-cv-00722-0/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

_____________________________

JOE HOLT, #240 463, *

Plaintiff, *

v. * 2:11-CV-722-TMH

(WO)

SGT. BURKS, et al., *

Defendants. *

_____________________________

ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On September 6, 2011, 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 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

In Rivera v. Allin, 144 F.3d 719, 731 (11 Cir. 1998), the Court determined that the "three strikes" 1 th

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." 

Case 2:11-cv-00722-TMH-SRW Document 4 Filed 09/14/11 Page 1 of 5
I. DISCUSSION

The undersigned takes judicial notice of federal court records which establish that

2

Plaintiff, while incarcerated or detained, has had on at least three occasions 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) Holt v. Baker, et al., Civil Action No. 7:07-CV-33-LSC (N.D. Ala. 2007)

(complaint and appeal frivolous); (2) Holt v. Limestone County Sheriff’s Dept., et al., Civil

Action No. 2:08-CV-1364-RDP (N.D. Ala. 2008) (complaint frivolous); (3) Holt v. Glenn,

Civil Action No. 2:08-1393-WMA (N.D. Ala. 2009) (complaint frivolous); (4) Holt v. Valls,

et al., Civil Action No. 2:08-1483-KOB (N.D. Ala. 2008) (complaint and appeal frivolous).

In the instant action, Plaintiff complains that while he was incarcerated at the Elmore

Correctional Facility Defendant, Burks subjected him to excessive force on June 30, 2011,

and that the remaining defendants failed to protect him from the assault and/or conspired to

cover up the assault by failing to report it. Plaintiff maintains that Defendant Burks’ conduct

caused him “serious physical injury and imminent danger.” (Doc. No. 1.)

“General allegationsthat are not grounded in specific facts which indicate thatserious

physical injury is imminent are not sufficient to invoke the exception to § 1915(g).” Niebla

v. Walton Correctional Inst., 2006 WL 2051307, *2 (N.D.Fla. July 20, 2006) (citing Martin

Available at http://pcl.uscourts.gov/.

2

-2-

Case 2:11-cv-00722-TMH-SRW Document 4 Filed 09/14/11 Page 2 of 5
v. Shelton, 319 F.3d 1048, 1050 (8 Cir. 2003). “The plaintiff must allege and provide

th

specific fact allegations of 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.” Id. (citing Martin, supra, and White v.

State of Colorado, 157 F.3d 1226, 1231 (10 Cir. 1998) (internal quotations omitted). The

th

“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 (7

th

Cir. 2002)

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

construing all allegations in favor of Plaintiff, his claims 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

v. Butler, 185 F.3d 1189 (11 Cir. 1999). See Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307, 315

th

(3 Cir. 2001) (“By using the term ‘imminent,’ Congress indicated that it wanted to include

rd

a safety valve for the ‘three strikes’ rule to prevent impending harms, not those harms that

had already occurred.”).

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

-3-

Case 2:11-cv-00722-TMH-SRW Document 4 Filed 09/14/11 Page 3 of 5
action. Dupree v. Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234, 1236 (11 Cir. 2002) (emphasis in original)

th

(“[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

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

II. CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, it is

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

on September 6, 2011 (Doc. No. 3) is DENIED.

It isthe 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 September 28, 2011. 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

-4-

Case 2:11-cv-00722-TMH-SRW Document 4 Filed 09/14/11 Page 4 of 5
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 (5 Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d

th

33 (11 Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11 Cir. 1981) (en

th th

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 14 day of September, 2011.

th

/s/ Susan Russ Walker

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-5-

Case 2:11-cv-00722-TMH-SRW Document 4 Filed 09/14/11 Page 5 of 5