Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-5_19-cv-00361/USCOURTS-ared-5_19-cv-00361-1/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 

PINE BLUFF DIVISION 

JAMES McALPHIN 

ADC #88328 PLAINTIFF 

v. No. 5:19-cv-361-DPM-BD 

BRUCE McCONNELL, Sgt., Varner 

Supermax, ADC; and JOHNSON, 

Lieutenant, Varner Supermax, ADC 

ORDER 

DEFENDANTS 

On de nova review, the Court adopts the recommendation, Doc. 24, 

and overrules McAlphin's objections, Doc. 29. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). 

McAlphin's motion for injunctive relief, Doc. 3, is denied. 

The Court adds a word about revoking McAlphin' s in forma 

pauperis status. A three-striker must show that he's in imminent danger 

at the time he files his complaint and at the time he files any appeal. 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(g); Martin v. Shelton, 319 F.3d 1048, 1050 (8th Cir. 2003). 

And it's possible to revisit the issue if a defendant shows that the 

inmate was not, in fact, in danger at the time he filed the complaint. 

E.g., Shepherd v. Annucci, 921 F.3d 89, 94-96 (2d Cir. 2019). The Court 

has not found any authority directly on point, though, about 

reassessing danger based solely on changed circumstances after the 

complaint is filed. But, the maxim is, the reason for the law ceasing, the 

law itself ceases. The exception exists to protect three-strikers against 

Case 5:19-cv-00361-DPM Document 31 Filed 03/11/20 Page 1 of 2
imminent danger. It "focuses on the risk that the conduct complained 

of threatens continuing or future injury, not on whether the inmate 

deserves a remedy for past misconduct." Martin, 319 F.3d at 1050. The 

hearing held by Magistrate Judge Deere established conclusively that 

inmate Scott now poses no imminent danger to McAlphin. If he wants 

to litigate the underlying merits about whether the previous 

circumstances put him in danger and harmed him, then McAlphin 

must pay the $400 filing and docketing fees by 10 April 2020. If he 

doesn't, then the Court will withdraw the reference and dismiss the 

complaint. The Court is not persuaded by McAlphin' s new argument 

that the statute is unconstitutional. He can litigate any § 1983 claim 

about circumstances that put him "under imminent danger of serious 

physical injury." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); see also Higgins v. Carpenter, 258 

F.3d 797, 799-801 (8th Cir. 2001). 

So Ordered. 

D.P. Marshall (r. United States District Judge 

-2-

Case 5:19-cv-00361-DPM Document 31 Filed 03/11/20 Page 2 of 2