Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_12-cv-01119/USCOURTS-almd-2_12-cv-01119-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

RASHAD LEE, #213 823, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

 v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:12-CV-1119-TMH

) [WO] 

WILBERT JERNIGAN, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On December 26, 2012, Plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated at the Limestone

Correctional Facility located in Harvest, 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 2:12-cv-01119-TMH-CSC Document 3 Filed 01/29/13 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 three occasions civil actions

and/or appeals dismissed as frivolous, malicious, for failure to state a claim, for asserting

claims against defendants who were immune from suit pursuant to the provisions of 28

U.S.C. § 1915, and/or counted as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The cases on

which the court relies in finding a violation of § 1915(g) include: (1) Lee v. Jernigan, et al.,

Civil Action No. 2:06-CV-134-MHT (M.D. Ala. 2006); (2) Lee v. Mills, et al., Civil Action

No. 2:09-CV-602-WHA (M.D. Ala. 2010); (3) Lee v. Myers, et al., Civil Action No. 1:10-

CV-396-KD) (S.D. Ala. 2011); and (4) Lee v. Myers, et al., Civil Action No. 1:10-CV-661-

KD (S.D. Ala, 2011).3

“General allegations that 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

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

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 2:12-cv-01119-TMH-CSC Document 3 Filed 01/29/13 Page 2 of 5
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 (7th

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 

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

-3-

Case 2:12-cv-01119-TMH-CSC Document 3 Filed 01/29/13 Page 3 of 5
§ 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 December 26, 2012 (Doc. No. 2) is DENIED. 

It is the RECOMMENDATION of theMagistrate 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 February 12, 2013, Plaintiff may file an objection to

this 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 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

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.

-4-

Case 2:12-cv-01119-TMH-CSC Document 3 Filed 01/29/13 Page 4 of 5
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 29 day of January, 2013. th

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-5-

Case 2:12-cv-01119-TMH-CSC Document 3 Filed 01/29/13 Page 5 of 5