Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_05-cv-00105/USCOURTS-alsd-1_05-cv-00105-0/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 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

TRACY G. ALLEN, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 05-0105-CG-M

CHARLIE JONES, et al., :

Defendants. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This action is before the Court sua sponte for

reconsideration of the Court’s granting of Plaintiff’s “Motion

for Extention for the Last Time for 67 Days to August 21st[sic]”

(Doc. 55) and “Motion Injunction of Relief, for Additional Time

or Refund the Total Balance Thats Been Sent $55.25 [sic]” (Doc.

48). Pursuant to both of Plaintiff’s Motions, Plaintiff was

granted an extension of time to pay the $250.00 filing fee. 

(Docs. 49 & 56) Plaintiff has made several partial payments

toward the filing fee in this action. (Docs. 13, 37, 50-54) 

However, Plaintiff has had more than three actions that he filed

as a prisoner dismissed as frivolous, which subjects this action

to review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and, for the reasons noted

below, to a recommendation of dismissal without prejudice. Thus,

upon reconsideration of Plaintiff’s foregoing Motions, they are

due to be denied.

Plaintiff filed this § 1983 action while he was an Alabama

Case 1:05-cv-00105-CG-M Document 58 Filed 06/22/06 Page 1 of 6
1

This prisoner action 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.

2

The dockets of the Southern, Middle, and Northern United

States District Courts in Alabama reflect that the following

actions Plaintiff filed while he was a prisoner were dismissed as

frivolous: Allen v. Jones, et al., CA 90-0059-T-S (S.D. Ala. Mar.

31, 1992); Allen v. Edwards, et al., CA 90-0076-BH-C (S.D. Ala.

Sept. 11, 1991); Allen v. Carver, et al., CA 90-0214-CB-S (S.D.

Ala. Sept. 20, 1991); Allen v. White, et al., CA 90-0561 (N.D.

Ala. June 28, 1990); Allen v. Patterson, CA 90-0562 (N.D. Ala.

June 26, 1990); Allen v. State of Alabama, CA 90-1100 (N.D. Ala.

Aug. 21, 1990); Allen v. Hunt, et al., CA 90-1101 (N.D. Ala. Aug.

21, 1990); Allen v. Norman, CA 91-0153 (N.D. Ala. May 29, 1991);

Allen v. Allen, et al., CA 91-1705 (N.D. Ala. Nov. 26, 1991);

Allen v. Hunt, et al., CA 91-1708 (N.D. Ala. Nov. 27, 1991);

Allen v. White, et al., CA 91-1935 (N.D. Ala. Feb. 3, 1992);

Allen v. Thigpen, et al., CA 91-2021 (N.D. Ala. Jan. 30, 1992);

Allen v. Battles, et al., CA 91-2476 (N.D. Ala. Apr. 17, 1992);

Allen v. Thigpen, CA 92-1623 (N.D. Ala. Nov. 29, 1993); Allen v.

Chaplain, CA 93-119 (N.D. Ala. Sept. 13, 1993); Allen v. Nagle,

CA 93-897 (N.D. Ala. Sept. 1, 1993); Allen v. Blankenship, CA 93-

1193 (N.D. Ala. Sept. 15, 1993); Allen v. Martin, CA 93-1801

(N.D. Ala. Mar. 2, 1994); Allen v. Burton, et al., CA 93-1808

(N.D. Mar. 2, 1994); Allen v. USPS, CA 93-1834 (N.D. Ala. Mar. 2,

1994); Allen v. Tucker, CA 93-1929 (N.D. Ala. Dec. 28, 1993);

Allen v. Champale, CA 93-1931 (N.D. Ala. Dec. 27, 1993); Allen v.

USPS, CA 93-1932 (N.D. Ala. Dec. 28, 1993); Allen v. Folsom, et

al., CA 93-2229 (N. D. Ala. Apr. 1, 1994); Allen v. State of

Alabama, CA 93-2272 (N.D. Ala. Apr. 4, 1994); Allen v. Nagle, CA

93-2350 (N.D. Ala. Mar. 31, 1994); Allen v. Nagle, et al., CA 93-

2

prison inmate and sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis under

28 U.S.C. § 1915 (Doc. 2).1

 After discovering that Plaintiff had

more than three actions previously dismissed as frivolous, the

Court rescinded its initial grant of in forma pauperis status

(Doc. 8), denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed without Prepayment

of Fees, and ordered him to pay the $250.00 filing fee. (Doc.

15)2 

Case 1:05-cv-00105-CG-M Document 58 Filed 06/22/06 Page 2 of 6
2399 (N.D. Ala. Apr. 1, 1994); Allen v. DeLoach, et al., CA 93-T1052-N (M.D. Ala. Oct. 6, 1993); Allen v. Harrelson, et al., CA

93-H-1114-N (M.D. Ala. Oct. 22, 1993); Allen v. Folsom, et al.,

CA 94-A-0288-N (M.D. Ala. Apr. 7, 1994); Allen v. Dr. Thomas, et

al., CA 94-0469-AH-S (S.D. Ala. Sept. 16, 1994); Allen v. Jones,

et al., CA 94-0572-CB-S (S.D. Ala. Nov. 7, 1994); Allen v. Jones,

et al., CA 94-0638-AH-S (S.D. Ala. Sept. 27, 1994); Allen v.

Folsom, et al., CA 94-A-0684-N (M.D. Ala. June 28, 1994); Allen

v. Folsom, et al., CA 94-A-0691-N (M.D. Ala. June 28, 1994);

Allen v. Allen, et al., CA 94-0987-RV-S (S.D. Ala. Jan. 31,

1995); Allen v. Harrelson, et al., CA 94-D-1524-N (M.D. Ala. Dec.

27, 1994); and Allen v. Naile, et al., CA 96-T-0446-N (M.D. Ala.

Apr. 17, 1996).

3

Because Plaintiff has had three actions that were previously

dismissed as frivolous, he was required to pay the $250.00 filing

fee when he filed this action or he would suffer the dismissal of

his action unless he came within the exception of 28 U.S.C. §

1915(g). Dupree v. Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234, 1236 (11th Cir. 2002);

Vanderberg v. Donaldson, 259 F.3d 1321, 1324-25 (11th Cir.),

cert. denied, 535 U.S. 976, 122 S.Ct. 1449, 152 L.Ed.2d 391

(2002).

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 the prisoner is under imminent danger

of serious physical injury.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Case 1:05-cv-00105-CG-M Document 58 Filed 06/22/06 Page 3 of 6
3

Plaintiff had previously filed another action about not

being allowed to attend his father’s funeral, Allen v. Thomas, et

al., CA 02-0535-BH-S (S.D. Ala. Aug. 26, 2002), which was

dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

4

In previously denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed Without

Prepayment of Fees (Doc. 4), it was found that Plaintiff did not

meet § 1915(g)’s exception that he was “under imminent danger of

serious physical injury” at the time he filed his Complaint (Doc.

8). Medberry v. Butler, 185 F.3d 1189, 1193 (11th Cir. 1999). 

The undersigned concurs in this assessment of Plaintiff’s

Complaint. That is, Plaintiff’s Complaint concerns Plaintiff not

being allowed to attend his father’s funeral on or about April

29, 2002, even though Plaintiff had a clear record for six years

and arrangements had been made for Plaintiff to be guarded. 

Plaintiff filed this action considerably later on February 22,

2005, than the denial, and this action does not concern a

physical injury, much less one that is serious or imminent. In

fact, Plaintiff states that he is suing for psychological abuse

he suffered.3

Therefore, because Plaintiff did not pay the $250.00 filing

fee at the time he filed this action and has not met § 1915(g)’s

“under imminent danger of serious physical injury” exception,

Plaintiff’s action is due to be dismissed without prejudice

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Dupree, 284 F.3d at 1236

(holding that an action must be dismissed without prejudice when

Case 1:05-cv-00105-CG-M Document 58 Filed 06/22/06 Page 4 of 6
5

an inmate who 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 so recommended that this action be dismissed

without prejudice. It is further recommended that the fees that

Plaintiff sent to the Court be returned to him and that

Plaintiff’s Motions (Docs. 48 & 55) be denied.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S EXPLANATION OF PROCEDURAL RIGHTS

AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION

AND FINDINGS CONCERNING NEED FOR TRANSCRIPT

1. 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

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

Case 1:05-cv-00105-CG-M Document 58 Filed 06/22/06 Page 5 of 6
6

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 action 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.

DONE this 22nd day of June, 2006.

s/BERT W. MILLING, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00105-CG-M Document 58 Filed 06/22/06 Page 6 of 6