Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00138/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00138-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

By separate order, the Court’s order granting plaintiff’s motion to proceed without

prepayment of fees (Doc. 5) has been rescinded due to the Court’s discovery of three prior

frivolous dismissals. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

OTTO RAY KIETZMAN, AIS #137979 :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 06-0138-KD-C

SUSAN F. WILSON, et al., :

Defendants. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This § 1983 action, filed by an Alabama prison inmate proceeding pro se and

seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis,1

 was referred to the undersigned pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.2(c)(4) for appropriate action. It is the

undersigned’s recommendation that plaintiff’s action be dismissed without prejudice

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

Section 1915(g) provides: 

In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or

appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding under this

section [28 U.S.C. § 1915] if the prisoner has, on 3 or more

prior 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

Case 1:06-cv-00138-KD-C Document 13 Filed 05/24/06 Page 1 of 5
2

 Plaintiff previously filed a similar § 1983 action, Kietzman v. Lee Stamp, CA 01-0488-

RV-S (S.D. Ala. June 12, 2002), which was concerned with plaintiff being unable to obtain his

trial transcript and being denied access to a law library. This action was dismissed pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) because plaintiff failed to pay the $150 filing fee at the time of filing, which

he was required to do on account of his three prior actions that had been dismissed as frivolous,

which are noted supra. 

Recently, plaintiff filed a petition for the writ of habeas corpus, challenging his 1983

convictions for possession of a forged instrument, second degree, which was dismissed as timebarred, Keitzman v. Thomas, CA 01-0314-BH-L (S.D. Ala. June 24, 2002).

2

the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical

injury.

Upon review of the records of this Court and of the United States District Court for the

Middle District of Alabama, the undersigned finds that plaintiff has three prior actions

that were dismissed as frivolous, namely, Keitzman v. Davis, et al., No. 85-0503-C-S

(S.D. Ala. Nov. 1, 1985); Kietzman v. Gordne, et al., 85-0431-BH-S (S.D. Ala. May 17,

1985); and Keitzman v. Green, et al., No. 93-0253 (M.D. Ala. June 8, 1993).

In the present action, plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1) does not indicate that at the

time of filing that plaintiff was “under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 

Medberry v. Butler, 185 F.3d 1189, 1193 (11th Cir. 1999) (holding that the plaintiff must

face imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time the complaint is filed, not at a

prior time). Rather, plaintiff’s present action is concerned with plaintiff’s inability to

obtain a copy of a trial transcript and the denial of access to courts and to a fair hearing.2

Because plaintiff did not pay the $250.00 filing fee at the time he filed this action

and has not met the § 1915(g)’s exception that he is “under imminent danger of serious

physical injury,” plaintiff’s action is due to be dismissed without prejudice. Dupree v.

Case 1:06-cv-00138-KD-C Document 13 Filed 05/24/06 Page 2 of 5
3

Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234, 1236 (11th Cir. 2002) (holding that an action must be dismissed

without prejudice when an inmate that is subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) does not pay the

full filing fee at the time he initiates the action). Accordingly, it is recommended that this

action be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

The attached sheet contains important information regarding objections to the

Report and Recommendation.

DONE this 24th day of May, 2006.

s/WILLIAM E. CASSADY 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

Case 1:06-cv-00138-KD-C Document 13 Filed 05/24/06 Page 3 of 5
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S EXPLANATION OF PROCEDURAL RIGHTS AND

RESPONSIBILITIES FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION, AND

FINDINGS CONCERNING NEED FOR TRANSCRIPT

l. Objection. Any party who objects to this recommendation, or anything in it, must, within

ten days of the date of service of this document, file specific written objections with the Clerk of

this Court. Failure to do so will bar a de novo determination by the district judge of anything in

the recommendation and will bar an attack, on appeal, of the factual findings of the Magistrate

Judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d 736, 738 (11th Cir. 1988);

Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. Unit B, 1982)(en banc). The procedure for

challenging the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge is set out in more detail

in SD ALA LR 72.4 (June 1, 1997), which provides that:

A party may object to a recommendation entered by a magistrate judge in a

dispositive matter, that is, a matter excepted by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), by

filing a “Statement of Objection to Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation” within

ten days after being served with a copy of the recommendation, unless a different

time is established by order. The statement of objection shall specify those

portions of the recommendation to which objection is made and the basis for the

objection. The objecting party shall submit to the district judge, at the time of

filing the objection, a brief setting forth the party’s arguments that the magistrate

judge’s recommendation should be reviewed de novo and a different disposition

made. It is insufficient to submit only a copy of the original brief submitted to the

magistrate judge, although a copy of the original brief may be submitted or

referred to and incorporated into the brief in support of the objection. Failure to

submit a brief in support of the objection may be deemed an abandonment of the

objection. 

A magistrate judge's recommendation cannot be appealed to a Court of Appeals; only the

district judge's order or judgment can be appealed.

2. Transcript (applicable Where Proceedings Tape Recorded). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915 and FED.R.CIV.P. 72(b), the Magistrate Judge finds that the tapes and original records in

this case are adequate for purposes of review. Any party planning to object to this

recommendation, but unable to pay the fee for a transcript, is advised that a judicial

determination that transcription is necessary is required before the United States will pay the cost

of the transcript.

s/WILLIAM E. CASSADY 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00138-KD-C Document 13 Filed 05/24/06 Page 4 of 5
5

Case 1:06-cv-00138-KD-C Document 13 Filed 05/24/06 Page 5 of 5