Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00478/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00478-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

MARCUS ORLANDO TATE, #180 664, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-CV-478-MHT 

 ) [WO] 

ROY MOORE, et al., ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 This case is before the court on a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint 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-00478-MHT-CSC Document 17 Filed 07/30/15 Page 1 of 5
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. In cases 

with these deficiencies, the usual practice of this court is to enter 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. The court granted Plaintiff this opportunity. See Doc. No. 2. 

Plaintiff filed a response on July 20, 2015, in which he claims he is exempt from payment of 

filing fees. See Doc. No. 3. Under the directives of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), however, 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 § 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 

Case 2:15-cv-00478-MHT-CSC Document 17 Filed 07/30/15 Page 2 of 5
3

(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 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, supra, 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) 

                                                            

2

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

referenced cases.

Case 2:15-cv-00478-MHT-CSC Document 17 Filed 07/30/15 Page 3 of 5
4

 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 (3rd 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 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 on or before August 13, 2015, 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 

Case 2:15-cv-00478-MHT-CSC Document 17 Filed 07/30/15 Page 4 of 5
5

will not be considered by the District Court. Plaintiff is advised this Recommendation is not a 

final order and, therefore, it is not appealable. 

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

Magistrate Judge's report shall bar Plaintiff from a de novo determination by the District Court of 

issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual findings in 

the report 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). See Stein v. Reynolds 

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), 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 the 30th day of July, 2015. 

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

 CHARLES S. COODY 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:15-cv-00478-MHT-CSC Document 17 Filed 07/30/15 Page 5 of 5