Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_14-cv-00367/USCOURTS-almd-2_14-cv-00367-0/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

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

JAMES BROADHEAD, #224 802, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-CV-367-MEF

) [WO]

OFFICER CENTAVRIAD OLDS, )

et al., )

Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This case is before the court on a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint filed by James M.

Broadhead [“Broadhead”], a frequent federal litigant, incarcerated at the Donaldson

Correctional Facility. Broadhead alleges that correctional officers at the Donaldson

Correctional Facility subjected him to excessive force. Doc. No. 1 at 3-6. Broadhead

1

seeks criminal prosecution of Defendants and monetary damages for the alleged violation

of his constitutional rights. Id. at 3.

I. DISCUSSION

On June 9, 2014, Broadhead filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Doc. No. 3. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), however, a prisoner

may not bring a civil action or proceed on appeal in forma pauperis if he “has, on 3 or more

This court may take judicial notice of its own records and the records of other federal courts. Nguyen

1

v. United States, 556 F.3d 1244, 1259 n.7 (11 Cir. 2009); United States v. Rey, 811 F.2d 1453, 1457 n.5 (11

th th

Cir. 1987); United States v. Glover, 179 F.3d 1300, 1302 n.5 (11 Cir. 1999). A review of several cases filed

th

by Broadhead in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama indicates that the

incident at issue occurred sometime last year.

Case 2:14-cv-00367-MEF-TFM Document 4 Filed 06/19/14 Page 1 of 4
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.”

2

Federal court records establish that Broadhead, while incarcerated or detained, has

on at least four occasions had civil actions dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 as frivolous,

malicious, for failure to state a claim and/or for asserting claims against defendants

immune from suit. The actions on which this court relies in finding a § 1915(g) violation

by Broadhead are: (1) Broadhead v. Dozier, et al., Case No. 2:11-CV-489-MEF-TFM

(M.D. Ala. 2012) (complaint malicious); (2) Broadhead v. O'Brian, et al., Case No. 4:10-

CV-475-JHH-RRA (N.D. Ala. 2010) (complaint frivolous); (3) Broadhead v. Hopkins, et

al., Case No. 4:10-CV-439-LSC-RRA (N.D. Ala. 2010) (complaint frivolous); and (4)

Broadhead v.Kirrire, et al.,Case No. 4:10-CV-53-VEH-RRA (N.D. Ala. 2010) (complaint

frivolous).

Upon review of the present complaint and other civil actions filed by Broadhead in

the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama alleging the same or

similar factual basis for relief, the court finds Broadhead fails to demonstrate he is in

“imminent danger of serious physical injury.” Consequently, the claims presented by

In Rivera v. Allin, 144 F.3d 719, 731 (11 Cir. 1998), the Court determined that the “three 2 th

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.” 

Case 2:14-cv-00367-MEF-TFM Document 4 Filed 06/19/14 Page 2 of 4
Broadhead do not entitle him to avoid the “three strikes” bar of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Medberry v. Butler, 185 F.3d 1189, 1193 (11 Cir. 1999) (A prisoner who has filed three

th

or more frivolous lawsuits or appeals and seeks to proceed in forma pauperis must present

facts sufficient to demonstrate "imminent danger" to circumvent application of the "three

strikes" provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).).

Based on the foregoing, the court concludes that Plaintiff's motion for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis is due to be denied and this case dismissed without prejudice for

Plaintiff’s failure to pay the requisite filing and administrative fees upon the initiation of this

cause of action. Dupree v. Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234, 1236 (11 Cir. 2002) (emphasis in

th

original) (“[T]he proper 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.”); Vanderberg v. Donaldson, 259 F.3d 1321, 1324 (11 Cir. 2001) (same).

th

II. CONCLUSION

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

1. The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by James M. Broadhead

on June 9, 2014, (Doc. No. 3) be DENIED.

2. This case be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to pay the full

filing and administrative fees upon the initiation of this case.

It is further

ORDERED that on or before July 8, 2014, Plaintiff may file an objection to the

Case 2:14-cv-00367-MEF-TFM Document 4 Filed 06/19/14 Page 3 of 4
Recommendation. Any objection filed must specifically identify the findings in the

Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which Plaintiff objects. Frivolous, conclusive or

general objections 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 advisements in the

Magistrate Judge's Recommendation shall bar a party from a de novo determination by the

District Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar a party from

attacking on appeal factual findings in the Recommendation 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 19 day of June 2014.

th

/s/Terry F. Moorer

TERRY F. MOORER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:14-cv-00367-MEF-TFM Document 4 Filed 06/19/14 Page 4 of 4