Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_13-cv-00546/USCOURTS-almd-2_13-cv-00546-1/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

ALEXANDER BRINSON, #131 165, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:13-CV-546-WHA

) [WO]

MONTGOMERY POLICE )

DEPARTMENT, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On July 30, 2013, Plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated at the Montgomery City Jail

located in Montgomery, Alabama, 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 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 2:13-cv-00546-WHA-TFM Document 16 Filed 08/19/13 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 four 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) Brinson v. Frith, et al., Civil Action No. 2:97-CV-1022-WHA-JLC (M.D. Ala.

1997), (2) Brinson v. Nix, et al., Civil Action No.2:97-CV-906-WHA-JLC (M.D. Ala. 1997),

(3) Brinson v. Jones, et al., Civil Action No. 2:95-CV-1548-ID-JLC (M.D. Ala. 1996), and

(4) Brinson v. Jones, et al., Civil Action No. 2:95-CV-1547-MHT-JLC (M.D. Ala. 1996).

3

Plaintiff brings this civil rights action stating that from July 8, 2013 to July 23, 2013

he was housed in the drunk tank at the Montgomery City Jail. He complains that the

conditions in the drunk tank were unconstitutional because of inadequate ventilation and an

unsanitary toilet facility consisting of a metal bar grate in the middle of the floor of the cell.

(Doc. No. 1.)

“General allegationsthat are not grounded in specific facts which indicate that serious

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

In evaluating whether Plaintiff has three strikes, the court may properly take judicial notice of 2

pleadings and orders in a previous case when the orders are public records and are “not subject to reasonable

dispute because they [are] capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy

could not reasonably be questioned.” Horne v. Potter, 392 Fed. Appx. 800, 802 (11 Cir. 2010). th

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

3

-2-

Case 2:13-cv-00546-WHA-TFM Document 16 Filed 08/19/13 Page 2 of 5
v. Walton Correctional Inst., 2006 WL 2051307, *2 (N.D.Fla. July 20, 2006) (citing Martin

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 in this complaint 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,

th

239 F.3d 307, 315 (3 Cir. 2001) (“By using the term ‘imminent,’ Congress indicated that

rd

it wanted to include 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

-3-

Case 2:13-cv-00546-WHA-TFM Document 16 Filed 08/19/13 Page 3 of 5
Plaintiff’s failure to pay the requisite $350.00 filing fee upon the initiation of this cause of

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 July 31, 2013 (Doc. No. 4) 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 on or before September 6, 2013 Plaintiff may file an objection to

the Recommendation Any objection filed must specifically identify the findings in the

Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which Plaintiff objects. Frivolous, conclusive or

general objections will not be considered by the District Court. Plaintiff is advised that this

Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable.

Failure to file a written objection to the proposed findings and advisements in the

-4-

Case 2:13-cv-00546-WHA-TFM Document 16 Filed 08/19/13 Page 4 of 5
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

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 19th day of August 2013.

/s/Terry F. Moorer

TERRY F. MOORER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-5-

Case 2:13-cv-00546-WHA-TFM Document 16 Filed 08/19/13 Page 5 of 5