Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00250/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00250-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

JAMES M. BROADHEAD, #224802, ) 

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

 v. ) CASE NO. 2:16-CV-250-WHA 

)

CAPT. JENKINS, et al., )

)

 Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

This case is before the court on a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint filed by James M. 

Broadhead (“Broadhead”), a frequent federal litigant, presently incarcerated at Bullock 

Correctional Facility (“Bullock”). In this complaint, Broadhead alleges that he was 

recently subjected to the use of excessive force while at Bullock. Specifically, 

Broadhead asserts that four correctional officers “beat and struck [him] with security 

sticks” almost 900 times resulting in his placement “in[to] free world hospital, [Cooper 

Green Hospital in Birmingham, Alabama,] where he had a broken arm in (3) places and 

staples in the head and (3) or (4) teeth[] was knocked out as there was threats on the 

plaintiff life the plaintiff was transferred for his safety as the plaintiff had fracture to his 

feet and ankle area from [the] excessive force.” Doc. 1 at 4. Broadhead seeks a 

Case 2:16-cv-00250-WHA-GMB Document 3 Filed 04/15/16 Page 1 of 8
2

declaratory judgment and monetary damages from the defendants for the alleged 

violations of his constitutional rights. Doc. 1 at 3–4. 

II. RELEVANT CASE HISTORY1

In June of 2011, Broadhead filed a civil action with this court in which he raised 

strikingly similar claims for relief—that he was struck with security sticks by correctional 

officers over 900 times, transferred to Cooper Green Hospital with “a broken arm in (3) 

places, and staples in the head, and (3) or (4) teeth[] was knocked out, as there was 

threats on the plaintiff life the plaintiff was transferred for his safety as the plaintiff had 

fracture to his feet and ankle area[.]” Broadhead v. Dozier, et al., (M.D. Ala. 2012), Doc. 

1 at 4. In this previous cause of action, Broadhead stated the assault occurred at Kilby 

Correctional Facility on June 17, 2011, whereas in the instant complaint he maintains the 

assault recently occurred at Bullock Correctional Facility. Additionally, Broadhead filed 

two other civil actions with this court in 2011 alleging substantially similar claims for 

relief with the only differences in each of these complaints being the date of the alleged 

incident and the individuals named as defendants. Broadhead v. Woodard, et al., Case 

No. 2:11-CV-341-MEF-TFM (M.D. Ala. 2012) (incident alleged to have occurred at 

Kilby Correctional Facility on April 20, 2011); Broadhead v. Norris, et al., Case No. 

2:11-CV-490-MEF-TFM (M.D. Ala. 2012) (incident alleged to have occurred on March 

 1 This court may take judicial notice of its own records and the records of other federal courts. Nguyen v. 

United States, 556 F.3d 1244, 1259 n.7 (11th Cir. 2009); United States v. Rey, 811 F.2d 1453, 1457 n.5 (11th

Cir. 1987); United States v. Glover, 179 F.3d 1300, 1302 n.5 (11th Cir. 1999).

Case 2:16-cv-00250-WHA-GMB Document 3 Filed 04/15/16 Page 2 of 8
3

13, 2010 at Kilby Correctional Facility). Moreover, Broadhead has filed thirteen

additional civil actions with this court since 2011 raising substantially similar claims for 

relief but again identifying different dates, defendants and/or facilities where the alleged 

assault occurred. See Broadhead v. Harris, et al., Case No. 2:16-CV-244-WHA-GMB; 

Broadhead v. Battle, et al., Case No. 2:16-CV-219-WHA-GMB (each case pending on a 

Recommendation addressing claims alleged to have occurred at Bullock Correctional 

Facility in early 2016); Broadhead v. Smith, et al., Case No. 2:16-CV-81-WHA-GMB 

(M.D. Ala. 2016); Broadhead v. Scott, et al., Case No. 2:16-CV-17-WHA-GMB (M.D. 

Ala. 2016); Broadhead v. Gasdon, et al., Case No. 2:15-CV-854-MHT-GMB (M.D. Ala. 

2015); Broadhead v. Olds, et al., Case No. 2:15-CV-715-WKW-TFM (M.D. Ala. 2015);

Broadhead v. Miree, et al., Case No. 2:14-CV-677-MHT-TFM (M.D. Ala. 2014);

Broadhead v. Rogers, et al., Case No. 2:14-CV-676-MHT-TFM (M.D. Ala. 2014); 

Broadhead v. Miree, et al., Case No. 2:14-CV-641-MHT-TFM (M.D. Ala. 2014); 

Broadhead v. Olds, et al., Case No. 2:14-CV-393-MEF-TFM (M.D. Ala. 2014);

Broadhead v. Olds, et al., Case No. 2:14-CV-367-MEF-TFM (M.D. Ala. 2014) (incident 

in the preceding nine cases alleged to have occurred at Donaldson Correctional Facility 

on unidentified dates in 2016, 2015 and 2014); Broadhead v. Babers et al., Case No. 

2:14-CV-210-MEF-TFM (M.D. Ala. 2014); Broadhead v. Babers et al., Case No. 2:14-

CV-49-WHA-TFM (M.D. Ala. 2014) (incident in these two cases alleged to have 

occurred during a prior stint of confinement at Bullock Correctional Facility).

Case 2:16-cv-00250-WHA-GMB Document 3 Filed 04/15/16 Page 3 of 8
4

The records for the other federal courts of this state likewise indicate that 

Broadhead has filed numerous other cases alleging a nearly identical claim of excessive 

force and asserting injuries consistent with those set forth in the instant complaint.2

Although these cases also differ in various details—the correctional facility at which the 

incident occurred, the date of the incident, the correctional officers involved, or the 

precise number of times officers struck Broadhead with security sticks—the core

allegation of excessive force remains constant in each case, as does Broadhead’s claim 

that his attackers stated the use of force occurred due to his conviction for rape of an 

elderly woman. In addition, Broadhead asserts that he suffered strikingly similar injuries 

during each alleged attack—a broken arm, staples in his head, loss of teeth and fractures 

to his feet and ankle areas—and consistently maintains that after each purported attack he 

was transported to Cooper Green Hospital for treatment of his injuries. The United States 

 2 See Broadhead v. Hicks, et al., Case No. 2:12-CV-2369-JHH-RRA (N.D. Ala. 2012); Broadhead v. Price, et 

al., Case No. 2:12-CV-2193-IPJ-RRA (N.D. Ala. 2012); Broadhead v. Byres, et al., Case No. 4:12-CV-644-

KOB-RRA (N.D. Ala. 2012); Broadhead v. Baker, et al., Case No. 4:12-CV-585-SLB-RRA (N.D. Ala. 2012); 

Broadhead v. Norris, et al., Case No. 2:11-CV-490-MEF-TFM (M.D. Ala. 2012); Broadhead v. Dozier, et al., 

Case No. 2:11-CV-489-MEF-TFM (M.D. Ala. 2012); Broadhead v. Woodard, et al., Case No. 2:11-CV-341-

MEF-TFM (M.D. Ala. 2012); Broadhead v. Scott, et al., Case No. 4:10-CV-1152-WMA-RRA (N.D. Ala.

2010); Broadhead v. Carter, et al., Case No. 4:10-CV-1142-AKK-RRA (N.D. Ala. 2010); Broadhead v. Miles, 

et al., Case No. 4:10-CV-1141-JHH-RRA (N.D. Ala. 2010); Broadhead v. Scott, et al., Case No. 4:10-CV1028-AKK-RRA (N.D. Ala. 2010); Broadhead v. Malone, et al., Case No. 4:10-CV-806-JHH-RRA (N.D. Ala.

2010); Broadhead v. McKay, et al., Case No. 4:10-CV-751-RRA (N.D. Ala. 2010); Broadhead v. O'Brian, et 

al., Case No. 4:10-CV-475-JHH-RRA (N.D. Ala. 2010); Broadhead v. Hopkins, et al., Case No. 4:10-CV-439-

LSC-RRA (N.D. Ala. 2010); Broadhead v. Wise, et al., Case No. 4:10-CV-388-IPJ-RRA (N.D. Ala. 2010); 

Broadhead v. Brown, et al., Case No. 4:10-CV-350-VEH-RRA (N.D. Ala. 2010); Broadhead v. Swain, et al., 

Case No. 4:10-CV-113-AKK-RRA (N.D. Ala. 2010); Broadhead v. Richburg, et al., Case No. 4:10-CV-54-

IPJ-RRA (N.D. Ala. 2010); Broadhead v. Kirrire, et al., Case No. 4:10-CV-53-VEH-RRA (N.D. Ala. 2010); 

Broadhead v. Swain, et al., Case No. 4:09-CV-2606-SLB-RRA (N.D. Ala. 2010); Broadhead v. Northcutt, et 

al., Case No. 4:09-CV-2512-SLB-RRA (N.D. Ala. 2011); Broadhead v. Michael, et al., Case No. 4:09-CV2473-VEH-RRA (N.D. Ala. 2010); Broadhead v. Griggs, et al., Case No. 1:10-CV-241-CG-C (S.D. Ala.

2011); Broadhead v. Heinz, et al., Case No. 1:10-CV-129-KD-B (S.D. Ala. 2010); Broadhead v. Mixon, et al., 

Case No. 1:10-CV-12-WS-C (S.D. Ala. 2010). 

Case 2:16-cv-00250-WHA-GMB Document 3 Filed 04/15/16 Page 4 of 8
5

District Court for the Northern District of Alabama determined that the physical 

altercation responsible for generating the voluminous number of cases filed by 

Broadhead occurred “on October 27, 2009, while [he was] incarcerated at . . . 

Donaldson[,]” and concluded that complaints “alleging that he was assaulted in exactly 

the same manner and sustained the same exact injuries [at different times and locations]

are ‘wholly incredible’ and ‘delusional.’” Broadhead v. Northcutt, et al., Case No. 4:09-

CV-2512-SLB-RRA (N.D. Ala. 2011), Doc. 24 at 5 & 9, adopted, Doc. 25 (quoting 

Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992)). 

III. DISCUSSION

Upon initiating this case, Broadhead did not pay the $350 filing fee and attendant 

$50 administrative fee nor did he file an application for leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis. In cases with these deficiencies, the usual practice of this court is to enter an 

order advising the plaintiff that he must pay the full filing fee and concomitant 

administrative fee or submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis. However, 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(g) directs that 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 

Case 2:16-cv-00250-WHA-GMB Document 3 Filed 04/15/16 Page 5 of 8
6

physical injury.”3 Consequently, an inmate in violation of the “three strikes” provision of 

§ 1915(g) who is not in “imminent danger” of suffering a serious physical injury must 

pay the filing fee upon initiation of his case. Dupree v. Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234, 1236 

(11th Cir. 2002). 

Federal court records establish that Broadhead, while incarcerated or detained, has 

on at least four occasions had civil actions dismissed pursuant to the provisions of 28 

U.S.C. § 1915 as frivolous, malicious, for failure to state a claim and/or for asserting 

claims against defendants immune from suit. The actions on which this court relies in 

finding a § 1915(g) violation by the plaintiff are: (1) Broadhead v. Dozier, et al., Case 

No. 2:11-CV-489-MEF-TFM (M.D. Ala. 2012) (complaint malicious); (2) Broadhead v. 

O’Brian, et al., Case No. 4:10-CV-475-JHH-RRA (N.D. Ala. 2010) (complaint 

frivolous); (3) Broadhead v. Hopkins, et al., Case No. 4:10-CV-439-LSC-RRA (N.D. 

Ala. 2010) (complaint frivolous); and (4) Broadhead v. Kirrire, et al., Case No. 4:10-CV53-VEH-RRA (N.D. Ala. 2010) (complaint frivolous). 

Upon review of the present complaint and the numerous other civil actions filed 

by Broadhead in this and the other federal courts of this state alleging the same factual 

 3 In Rivera v. Allin, 144 F.3d 719, 731 (11th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 978 (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 Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 216 (2007), the Supreme Court 

abrogated Rivera but only to the extent it compelled an inmate to plead exhaustion of remedies in his 

complaint as “failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense under the PLRA . . . and inmates are not required to 

specifically plead or demonstrate exhaustion in their complaints.”

Case 2:16-cv-00250-WHA-GMB Document 3 Filed 04/15/16 Page 6 of 8
7

basis for relief, the court finds that Broadhead fails to demonstrate that he “is under 

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

circumvention of the directives contained in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Medberry v. Butler, 

185 F.3d 1189, 1193 (11th Cir. 1999) (holding that a prisoner who has filed three or more 

frivolous lawsuits or appeals and seeks to proceed in forma pauperis must present facts 

sufficient to demonstrate “imminent danger” to circumvent application of the “three 

strikes” provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)); Lewis v. Sullivan, 279 F.3d 526, 531 (7th Cir. 

2002) (noting the imminent danger exception is available only “[w]hen a threat or prison 

condition is real and proximate, and when the potential consequence is ‘serious physical 

injury.’”). Thus, even if Broadhead sought in forma pauperis status in the instant action, 

he is not entitled to such status due to his violation of the “three strikes” provision of 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Based on the foregoing analysis, the court concludes that this case is due to be 

summarily dismissed without prejudice as Broadhead failed to pay the requisite filing and 

administrative fees upon his initiation of this case. Dupree, 284 F.3d at 1236 (emphasis in 

original) (“[T]he proper procedure is for the district court to dismiss the complaint 

without prejudice when [an inmate is not entitled] to proceed in forma pauperis [due] to 

the provisions of § 1915(g)” because he “must pay the filing fee at the time he initiates

the suit.”); Vanderberg v. Donaldson, 259 F.3d 1321, 1324 (11th Cir. 2001) (same). 

Case 2:16-cv-00250-WHA-GMB Document 3 Filed 04/15/16 Page 7 of 8
8

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this 

case be dismissed without prejudice for the plaintiff’s failure to pay the filing and 

administrative fees upon initiation of this case. 

It is further ORDERED that on or before April 29, 2016 the plaintiff may file 

objections to the Recommendation. The plaintiff must specifically identify the factual 

findings and legal conclusions in the Recommendation to which objection is made; 

frivolous, conclusive, or general objections will not be considered. Failure to file written 

objections to the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations in accordance with 

the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) shall bar a de novo determination by the District 

Court of legal and factual issues covered in the Recommendation and waives the right of 

the plaintiff to challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on unobjected-to 

factual and legal conclusions 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); 11th Cir. R. 3-1; see Stein v. Lanning Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 

1982).

DONE this15th day of April, 2016. 

 /s/ Gray M. Borden 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-00250-WHA-GMB Document 3 Filed 04/15/16 Page 8 of 8