Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00023/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00023-0/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 FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JAMES McCONICO, JR., :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 06-00023-KD-B

 

UNITED STATES CONGRESS, et al., :

Defendants. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, an Alabama prison inmate proceeding pro se, filed

a Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 4) and requested leave

to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 5) pursuant the provisions of

28 U.S.C. § 1915. This action has been referred to the

undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)

and Local Rule 72.2 (c)(4) for appropriate action. Based upon a

careful review, it is the undersigned’s recommendation that

Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees (Doc. 5)

be denied and that this 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

Case 1:06-cv-00023-KD-B Document 6 Filed 02/15/06 Page 1 of 7
1

In 2000, at least seven actions were filed by other inmates

complaining that Plaintiff’s placement in Holman’s segregation

caused them to be denied access to courts because Plaintiff could

not assist them with their Rule 32 petitions that had an

immediate deadline. These actions were either similar or

identical to each other, and they were dismissed under §

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim.

2

Plaintiff paid the $150.00 filing fee for this action. 

Nevertheless, the district court dismissed Plaintiff’s action for

lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

3

Plaintiff paid the $150.00 filing fee in this action. 

After a response from defendants, this action was dismissed for

lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

2

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.

Plaintiff is a frequenter litigator in this Court, having

filed actions on his own behalf, and prepared actions for other

inmates.1 He has also been previously identified by the Court as

an inmate with “three strikes” for § 1915(g) purposes. 

Specifically, Plaintiff was denied leave to proceed in forma

pauperis by this Court due to § 1915(g) in McConico v. Booker, et

al., CA 96-0538-AH-C,2 and McConico v. Scott, et al., CA 98-0520-

BH-M.3 Plaintiff’s subsequent appeals in these actions were

dismissed by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals as frivolous. 

McConico v. Booker, et al., CA 96-0538-AH-C (S.D. Ala. Nov. 6,

1997), on appeal, No. 97-6941 (11th Cir. May 14, 1998); McConico

v. Scott, et al., CA 98-0520-BH-M (S.D. Ala. May 19, 1999), on

appeal, No. 99-12815 (11th Cir. Sept. 5, 2001).

Case 1:06-cv-00023-KD-B Document 6 Filed 02/15/06 Page 2 of 7
4 Additionally, the Court is aware that Plaintiff has many

other actions that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. In

Plaintiff’s habeas action filed in this Court, Civil Action No.

96-0014-RV-M, the respondent in his answer to amendment and

renewed motion to dismiss attached an order from the United

States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama which

indicated that seven of Plaintiff’s actions were dismissed as

frivolous, malicious, failure to state a claim upon which relief

may be granted, or an abuse of process on August 21, 1996 (Doc.

38). The Northern District court observed, in an accompanying

memorandum opinion, that Plaintiff had filed at least thirty

actions since 1990, and it listed nine actions that were filed

since 1994 that were concluded against Plaintiff, with most of

them being found to be frivolous.

In addition to these actions that were dismissed for being

legally insufficient, Plaintiff was also barred from proceeding

in forma pauperis in McConico v. CMS, CA 00-0399-RV-L, pursuant

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff initially filed the § 1983 action

in Missouri, the alleged location of CMS’s corporate

headquarters. Subsequently, the action was transferred to this

Court where Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status was revoked. 

Thereupon, Plaintiff filed a motion to voluntarily his dismiss

his action.

3

In addition to these two frivolous appeals, an examination

of the records of this Court and the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Alabama reflects that Plaintiff filed

two other actions while he was a prisoner that were dismissed as

frivolous, namely, McConico v. Riley, et al., CA 96-0118-BH-M

(S.D. Ala. July 16, 1996), and McConico v. Mann, et al., CA 96-A0353-N (M.D. Ala. Mar. 27, 1996). Therefore, the Court

determines that at least three of Plaintiff’s prior actions or

appeals have been dismissed as frivolous.4

 

Because Plaintiff comes within the purview of § 1915(g), he

must establish in the Complaint that he is “under imminent danger

Case 1:06-cv-00023-KD-B Document 6 Filed 02/15/06 Page 3 of 7
4

serious physical injury” in order to avoid this section’s

application. However, in the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts that

through the efforts of Defendants, former President Bill Clinton,

former United States Attorney General Janet Reno, and the United

States Congress, the Anti-Terrorism Effective Death Penalty Act

of 1996 (hereinafter “AEDPA”) became law and that AEDPA unduly

restricts successive habeas petitions and, in his situation, 28

U.S.C. § 2244(b) amounts to a suspension the writ of habeas

corpus. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that he was not allowed

to file a successive habeas petition even though the State lacks

jurisdiction to imprison him. Plaintiff seeks to have § 2244(b)

or the entire AEDPA amendment declared unconstitutional. 

Despite Plaintiff being aware, through this Court’s prior

rulings that he is considered a “three-striker,” he has not come

forth with any allegation of “an imminent danger of serious

physical injury” at the time he filed his Complaint. Malik v.

McGinnis, 293 F.3d 559, 562-63 (2d Cir. 2002) (“[I]mminent danger

exception only applies to danger existing at the time the

complaint is filed” and does not encompass those harms that have

already occurred.); Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307, 311

(3d Cir.) (allegations of imminent danger of serious physical

injury faced by a prisoner in the past are insufficient to allow

the prisoner to proceed in forma pauperis), cert. denied, 533

U.S. 953, 121 S.Ct. 2600, 150 L.Ed.2d 757 (2001); Medberry v.

Case 1:06-cv-00023-KD-B Document 6 Filed 02/15/06 Page 4 of 7
5

Butler, 185 F.3d 1189, 1193 (11th Cir. 1999) (same); Ashley v.

Dilworth, 147 F.3d 715, 717 (8th Cir. 1998) (same); Banos v.

O’Brien, 144 F.3d 883, 884-85 (5th Cir. 1998) (same). 

Because Plaintiff did not pay the $250.00 filing fee at the

time he filed this action and has not met § 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. Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234, 1236 (11th Cir. 2002) (holding

that an action must be dismissed without prejudice when 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); accord Simmons

v. Zloch, 148 F.3d 921, 922 (11th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, it is

recommended that Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed Without Prepayment

of Fees (Doc. 5) be denied, and 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 15th day of February 2006.

/S/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00023-KD-B Document 6 Filed 02/15/06 Page 5 of 7
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)©); Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d

736, 738 (11th Cir. 1988). 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,

in part, 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. Opposing party’s response to the objection. Any opposing

party may submit a brief opposing the objection within ten (10)

days of being served with a copy of the statement of objection. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; SD ALA LR 72.4(b). 

Case 1:06-cv-00023-KD-B Document 6 Filed 02/15/06 Page 6 of 7
3. 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 15th day of February 2006.

/s/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00023-KD-B Document 6 Filed 02/15/06 Page 7 of 7