Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-3_16-cv-00040/USCOURTS-ared-3_16-cv-00040-1/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

JONESBORO DIVISION

QUENTIN ROSE and

LAKHRAJ MANOHAR PLAINTIFFS

V. CASE NO. 3:16-CV-40-DPM-BD

CRAIGHEAD COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY DEFENDANT

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

I. Procedures for Filing Objections: 

This Recommended Disposition (“Recommendation”) has been sent to Judge D.P.

Marshall Jr. You may file written objections to this Recommendation. If you file

objections, they must be specific and must include the factual or legal basis for your

objection. Your objections must be received in the office of the United States District

Court Clerk within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Recommendation. 

If no objections are filed, Judge Marshall can adopt this Recommendation without

independently reviewing the record. By not objecting, you may also waive any right to

appeal questions of fact. 

II. Discussion:

A. Lakhraj Manohar

On February 3, 2016, Plaintiff Lakhraj Manohar, then an inmate in the Craighead

County Detention Facility, filed this action pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, purporting to

bring constitutional claims on behalf of himself and Quentin Rose. (Docket entry #1) 

Mr. Manohar did not immediately submit an in forma pauperis (IFP) application. 

Case 3:16-cv-00040-DPM Document 14 Filed 04/05/16 Page 1 of 4
Because of his litigation history, Mr. Manohar would not have been eligible for IFP status

in federal court absent allegations of imminent danger, and he did not plead facts

indicating that he was in immediate peril.1 The Court ordered Mr. Manohar to pay the

$400 filing fee within thirty days. (#2) 

On February 17, 2016, Mr. Manohar filed a notice of change of address (#4)

indicating that he had been released from custody and also a motion to proceed IFP,

which the Court denied. (#5, #6) Mr. Manohar was ordered to pay the statutory filing fee

by March 14, 2016, or risk having his claims dismissed. (#6)

Mr. Manohar has asked the court to reconsider the decision to deny him IFP status. 

The so-called “three strikes” rule bars prisoners from proceeding IFP if they have filed

three or more federal cases that were dismissed as frivolous or malicious, or for failure to

state a claim for relief.

2

 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiffs subject to the three-strikes bar

must immediately pay the filing fee if they wish to proceed with their lawsuits. 

Mr. Manohar was a prisoner at the time he filed this lawsuit, but he had been

released from custody at the time he filed a motion for IFP status. The statute does not

specifically address whether a person such as Mr. Manohar, who was a prisoner at the

1

 The following dismissals constitute “strikes” against Mr. Manohar for purposes

of determining eligibility for IFP status: Manohar v. Arkansas, et al., E.D. Ark. Case No.

3:14cv218 (dismissed Oct. 9, 2014); Manohar v. Lyles, et al., E.D. Ark. Case No.

3:14cv240 (dismissed Nov. 4, 2014); Manohar v. Hall, E.D. Ark. Case No. 3:14cv246

(dismissed Nov. 5, 2014).

2

 There is an exception, of course, if these plaintiffs plead facts indicating that they

are in immediate danger of serious physical injury. 

2

Case 3:16-cv-00040-DPM Document 14 Filed 04/05/16 Page 2 of 4
time the lawsuit was filed but was released from custody when the motion to proceed IFP

was filed, is subject to the three-strikes rule. The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

has not addressed this issue, but federal courts in other circuits have held that the threestrikes rule applies to all lawsuits filed by prisoners, even if those plaintiffs are later

released from custody. See Gibson v. City of New York, 692 F.3d 198, 201 (2nd Cir.

2012); Harris v. City of New York, 607 F.3d 18, 20-21 (2nd Cir. 2010); Torns v. Miss.

Dept. of Corrs., 421 Fed. Appx. 316 (5th Cir. 2010) (unpublished decision); Goodman v.

Graham, 2012 WL 1655699 (S.D.Ga. May 2, 2012). In Harris, the Court explained that,

“[t]he use of the word ‘bring’ [in § 1915(g)] offers a clear indication that the provision

goes into effect – and bars the suit under the in forma pauperis section – at the moment

the plaintiff files his complaint or notice of appeal.” Harris, 607 F.3d at 21-22. 

Because Mr. Manohar was subject to the three-strikes rule at the time he filed this

lawsuit, his motion to reconsider his application for IFP status (#11) should be denied. 

Furthermore, because he has not paid the filing fee within the time allowed, his claims

should now be dismissed, without prejudice. 

B. Quentin Rose

On February 10, 2016, the Court ordered Mr. Rose to either pay the $400 statutory

filing fee or file an IFP application within thirty days if he wanted to pursue claims raised

in this lawsuit. (#2) That Order, however, was returned to the Court marked “return to

sender” and “unable to forward,” indicating that Mr. Rose had been released from

3

Case 3:16-cv-00040-DPM Document 14 Filed 04/05/16 Page 3 of 4
custody. (#7) On February 23, 2016, the Court ordered Mr. Rose update his address

within thirty days or risk dismissal of his claims.

To date, Mr. Rose has not complied with the Court’s February 23, 2016 Order, and

the time for doing so has passed. Mr. Rose’s claims should be dismissed, without

prejudice, based on his failure to comply with the Court’s February 23, 2016 Order.

III. Conclusion:

The Court recommends that Mr. Manohar’s motion for reconsideration (#11) be

DENIED, and that all claims raised by Mr. Manohar and Mr. Rose be DISMISSED,

without prejudice, because neither has satisfied the filing fee requirement as ordered. 

DATED this 5th day of April, 2016.

___________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

4

Case 3:16-cv-00040-DPM Document 14 Filed 04/05/16 Page 4 of 4