Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00721/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00721-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

MARCUS O. TATE, #180 664, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-CV-721-MHT 

 ) [WO] 

ALABAMA PRESIDENT PRO ) 

TEMPORE, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 This case is before the court on a civil action filed by Plaintiff, an indigent state 

inmate presently incarcerated at the Fountain Correctional Facility in Atmore, Alabama. 

Under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a prisoner may not 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

 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

                                                            

1 In Rivera v. Allin, 144 F.3d 719, 731 (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 2:15-cv-00721-MHT-WC Document 7 Filed 10/21/15 Page 1 of 6
2 

I. DISCUSSION 

 Upon initiating this case, Plaintiff did not pay the $350.00 filing fee and attendant 

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

pauperis which is required to proceed in this court. The court, therefore, entered an order 

advising Plaintiff that he must pay the full filing fee and concomitant administrative fee 

or submit an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See Doc. No. 2. Plaintiff 

filed a response on October 9, 2015, the first page of which is the form used by 

individuals who seek leave to proceed in this court in forma pauperis. See Doc. No. 4. 

Although Plaintiff’s October 9, 2015, response indicates his belief, albeit an erroneous 

one, that he is exempt from payment of filing fees, under 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.” 

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). 

 Court records establish that Plaintiff, while incarcerated or detained, has on at least 

three occasions had civil actions and/or appeals dismissed as frivolous, as malicious, for 

failure to state a claim and/or for asserting claims against defendants immune from suit 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The cases on which the court relies in finding a violation of § 

Case 2:15-cv-00721-MHT-WC Document 7 Filed 10/21/15 Page 2 of 6
3 

1915(g) are: (1) Taite v. Haley, et al., Case No. 2:02-CV-34-MHT-CSC (M.D. Ala. 

2002); (2) Tate v. Keahey, et al., Case No. 1:02-CV-734-BH-S (S.D. Ala. 2003); and (3) 

Tate v. Lawson, Case No. 2:06-CV-1779-RBP (N.D. Ala. 2006).2

 In addition to these 

civil actions, Plaintiff filed Drelijah Joshua Muhammad, II v. McIntyre, III, et al., Case 

No. 1:06-CV-228-BH-C (S.D. Ala. 2006), which “dismissed for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction due to Plaintiff filing the § 1983 action while he was a prisoner, paying the 

filing fee, and suing non-state actors, which therefor placed his action beyond the 

purview of 28 U.S. C. §§ 1915 and § 1915A. The complaint was found to be without 

legal merit. “By all reasoning, the preceding action meets the criteria ... for a frivolous 

action – that a frivolous action is one that is ‘based on [an] indisputably meritless legal 

theory’ or ‘lacks an arguable basis in law.’” Tate v. Bass, et al., Civil Action No. 1:07-

305-KD-C (S.D. Ala. 2007) (citations omitted) - Report and Recommendation of the 

Magistrate Judge (dismissing case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)) -- Court Doc. No. 5

at 2, adopted as opinion of the court by order of June 22, 2007 - Court Doc. No. 10). This 

court, therefore, concludes that the summary dismissals of these four cases place Plaintiff 

in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

 “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 (8th Cir. 2003). “The plaintiff must 

                                                            

2

The requisite dismissals are indicated on the docket sheets maintained by each respective court in the 

referenced cases. The information is also on PACER [“Public Access to Court Electronic Records”], 

available at http://www.pacer.gov. 

Case 2:15-cv-00721-MHT-WC Document 7 Filed 10/21/15 Page 3 of 6
4 

allege and provide 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, 319 F.3d at 1050 and White v. State of Colorado, 157 F.3d 1226, 1231 (10th Cir. 

1998) (internal quotations omitted). The “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 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 indicate that he was “under imminent danger of 

serious physical injury” when he filed this cause of action as required to meet the 

imminent danger exception to the application of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Medberry v. 

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

(3d Cir. 2001) (“By 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.”). 

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

dismissed without prejudice as Plaintiff 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 

[violation of] the provisions of § 1915(g)” because the prisoner “must pay the filing fee at 

Case 2:15-cv-00721-MHT-WC Document 7 Filed 10/21/15 Page 4 of 6
5 

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

2001) (same). 

II. CONCLUSION 

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

case be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to pay the filing and 

administrative fees upon his initiation of this case. 

 It is further 

ORDERED that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the said 

Recommendation on or before November 4, 2015. A party 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 party from a de novo

determination by the District Court of legal and factual issues covered in the 

Recommendation and waives the right of the party 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); see also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 

F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc). The parties are advised that this Recommendation 

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

Case 2:15-cv-00721-MHT-WC Document 7 Filed 10/21/15 Page 5 of 6
6 

Done this 21st day of October, 2015. 

 /s/ Wallace Capel, Jr. 

 WALLACE CAPEL, JR. 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:15-cv-00721-MHT-WC Document 7 Filed 10/21/15 Page 6 of 6