Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-3_24-cv-00178/USCOURTS-ared-3_24-cv-00178-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

NORTHERN DIVISION

ERNEST TERRELL FRIAR, JR. PLAINTIFF 

ADC #660122 

v. Case No: 3:24-CV-00178-LPR 

JACKSON COUNTY PAROLE AND 

PROBATION BOARD, et al. DEFENDANTS 

 

ORDER

 Plaintiff Ernest Terrell Friar, Jr., detained at the Jackson County Detention Facility, filed a 

pro se complaint on October 1, 2024.1 Mr. Friar did not pay the $405 filing fee or seek to proceed 

with his case in forma pauperis. To proceed with this action, Mr. Friar must first, within 30 days 

from the entry of this Order, either pay the statutory filing fee or complete an application to proceed 

in forma pauperis. If he does not do one or the other within 30 days, his case will be dismissed 

without prejudice.2

The Prison Litigation Reform Act provides that a prisoner cannot proceed in forma 

pauperis “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.”3

 Prior to filing this 

lawsuit on October 1, 2024, Mr. Friar filed at least three actions that were dismissed for failing to 

state a claim upon which relief may be granted.4 

1

 Compl. (Doc. 1). 

2

 Local Rule 5.5(c)(2). 

3

 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

4 See Friar v. Jackson Cnty. Sheriff Dep’t, Case No. 1:14-CV-00097-BSM (E.D. Ark.) (dismissed Dec. 12, 2014) 

(summarily affirmed on appeal); Friar v. Jackson Cnty. Sheriff Dep’t et al., Case No. 1:16-CV-00027-BSM (E.D. 

Case 3:24-cv-00178-LPR Document 6 Filed 10/30/24 Page 1 of 2
2 

As a three-striker, Mr. Friar may proceed in forma pauperis only if he alleges facts that 

plausibly show he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed his 

Complaint.5 Although Mr. Friar’s Complaint alleges that he has received death threats, it is unclear 

whether he is alleging that one or more of the Defendants is responsible for those threats. And 

from the facts alleged, the Court cannot determine whether those death threats plausibly placed 

Mr. Friar in imminent danger of serious physical injury. If Mr. Friar wishes to proceed under the 

“imminent danger” exception to the three-strikes rule, he will need to clarify these allegations in 

an amended complaint. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 

1. To proceed with this lawsuit, Mr. Friar has thirty (30) days from the date of this

order in which to (1) pay the $405 filing fee in full, or (2) complete an application to proceed in 

forma pauperis along with an amended complaint clarifying any “imminent danger” allegations. 

2. The Clerk is directed to send Mr. Friar a prisoner Application to Proceed Without

Prepayment of Fees and Affidavit, a blank § 1983 complaint, and a copy of this Order.6

IT IS SO ORDERED this 30th day of October 2024. 

_______________________________

LEE P. RUDOFSKY 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Ark.) (dismissed May 31, 2016) (summarily affirmed on appeal); Friar v. Wrightsville Unit, Case No. 4:17-CV-00486-

SWW (E.D. Ark.) (dismissed Sept. 27, 2017) (no appeal filed). 

5 See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (providing that three strikers should be granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis if 

they are “under imminent danger of serious physical injury”); Ashley v. Dilworth, 147 F.3d 715, 717 (8th Cir. 1998) 

(explaining that the exception applies only if the prisoner is in imminent danger “at the time of filing” and that 

“[a]llegations that the prisoner has faced imminent danger in the past are insufficient”). 

6 It appears that the file-marked copy of the Court’s Order on Amicus Briefs that was mailed to Mr. Friar’s last-known 

address was returned to the Court as undeliverable. See Doc. 5. It is Mr. Friar’s duty to maintain a current address 

with the Court. See Local Rule 5.5(c)(2). Failure to respond in a timely manner to a communication from the Court 

may constitute grounds for dismissal. Id. 

Case 3:24-cv-00178-LPR Document 6 Filed 10/30/24 Page 2 of 2