Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_09-cv-00373/USCOURTS-almd-2_09-cv-00373-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

In Rivera v. Allin, 144 F.3d 719, 731 (11th Cir. 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 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 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

 _______________________________

TOMMIE LEE HAUSEY, #158 914 *

Plaintiff, *

 v. * 2:09-CV-373-TMH

 (WO)

STATE OF ALABAMA, et al., *

Defendants. *

 _______________________________

ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On April 22, 2009, Tommie Hausey, an inmate incarcerated at the Bullock County

Correctional Facility located in Union Springs, Alabama, filed the instant civil rights action.

Plaintiff requests leave to proceed in this action in forma pauperis.

Under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a prisoner is not allowed to bring a civil

action or proceed on appeal in forma pauperis if she “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).

Case 2:09-cv-00373-TMH-CSC Document 3 Filed 05/22/09 Page 1 of 4
2

DISCUSSION

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

three occasions had 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) Hausey v. Hooks, et al., Civil Action No. 1:96-

CV-938-JHH (N.D. Ala. 1997) (appeal frivolous), (2) Hausey v. Bullock County

Correctional Facility, Civil Action No. 2:00-CV-778-MHT (M.D. Ala. 2000), (3) Hausey

v. State, et al., Civil Action No. 2:05-CV-1487-JEO (N.D. Ala. 2007); and (4) Hausey v. U.S.

Postal Service, et al., 3:06-CV-712-FJD (M.D. La. 2006). 

The court has reviewed the allegations presented in the instant complaint and finds

that they do not allege nor in any way indicate that Plaintiff was “under imminent danger of

serious physical injury” at the time the instant complaint was filed as is required to meet the

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

Butler, 185 F.3d 1189 (11th Cir. 1999). Given the “three strikes” provision of § 1915(g) and

the fact that Plaintiff’s instant complaint does not show that he is in imminent danger of

serious physical injury, this action shall be dismissed pursuant to § 1915(g).

Based on the foregoing, the court concludes that Plaintiff shall be denied leave to

proceed in forma pauperis and this case should be dismissed without prejudice as Plaintiff

failed to pay the requisite filing fee upon the initiation of this cause of action. Dupree v.

Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234, 1236 (11th Cir. 2002) (emphasis in original) (“[T]he proper

Case 2:09-cv-00373-TMH-CSC Document 3 Filed 05/22/09 Page 2 of 4
3

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.”). 

CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, it is 

ORDERED that the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by Plaintiff

on April 22, 2009 (Doc. No. 2) is DENIED. 

It is the 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 the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the

Recommendation on or before June 4, 2009. Any objections filed must specifically identify

the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which a party objects. Frivolous,

conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are

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 recommendations in the

Magistrate Judge's report shall bar the party 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

Case 2:09-cv-00373-TMH-CSC Document 3 Filed 05/22/09 Page 3 of 4
4

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 22nd day of May, 2009.

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-00373-TMH-CSC Document 3 Filed 05/22/09 Page 4 of 4