Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_15-cv-00230/USCOURTS-alsd-1_15-cv-00230-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bennie Andrews
Defendant
Gary Hetzel
Defendant
Deric LaVelle May
Plaintiff
Karen Stone
Defendant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DERIC LaVELLE MAY, # 209534, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 15-230-KD-M

GARY HETZEL, et al., :

Defendants. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This § 1983 action, filed by an Alabama prison inmate 

proceeding pro se, 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. Plaintiff, who is known to the Court as a 

“three striker,” filed a Motion to Proceed Without Prepayment of 

Fees when he filed his Complaint instead of paying the $400 

filing fee, which he is required to pay as a “three-striker” 

unless he meets the exception to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff 

is aware of this requirement, as several of his actions have 

been dismissed pursuant to § 1915(g). After reviewing 

Plaintiff’s Complaint, it is recommended that this action be 

dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

I. Applicable Law.

Case 1:15-cv-00230-KD-M Document 3 Filed 06/22/15 Page 1 of 19
2

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.

The purpose of this section is to curb abusive prisoner 

litigation by requiring a prisoner who has had three actions or 

appeals dismissed as meritless to pay the full filing fee when 

his next action is filed. Dupree v. Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234, 1236 

(11th Cir. 2002). “The only exception to section 1915(g) is if 

the frequent filer prisoner is ‘under imminent danger of serious 

physical injury.’” Rivera v. Allin, 144 F.3d 719, 723 (11th 

Cir. 1998), overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 

U.S. 199, 215-16 (2007).

In the present action, Plaintiff filed a Complaint that is 

essentially a duplicate of the Complaint in May v. Stone, CA No. 

15-25-KD-B, 2015 WL 3459035 (S.D. Ala. June 1, 2015), notice of 

appeal filed (June 11, 2015), which was dismissed pursuant to 28 

Case 1:15-cv-00230-KD-M Document 3 Filed 06/22/15 Page 2 of 19
3

U.S.C. § 1915(g).1 The present action’s Defendants are the same 

as the named Defendants in the prior action, namely, Karen 

Stone, a medical doctor at Holman Correctional Facility 

(“Holman”); Bennie Andrews, a registered nurse and the Health 

Services Administrator at Holman; and Gary Hetzel, Warden at 

Holman. (Doc. 1 at 5-6). The present Complaint’s allegations 

vary only slightly from the prior action, with the chief

variation being the specific claim against Defendant Hetzel, 

which states: “(Hetzel) failed to install any form of audit 

procedures to check performance of it[]s contractor of medical 

services, therefore, he allowed to exist the deprivation of 

adequate medical care.” (Id. at 6)(alteration in original). 

The claim against Defendant Hetzel in the prior action states:

“On March 27, 2014 (Hetzel) failed to ensure that the defendants 

were adequately trained, failed to oversee them and discipline 

them.” (Doc.1 at 6)(alteration in original). The other 

variations are few and are mostly grammatical changes.

The primary reason that the prior action did not satisfy § 

1915(g)’s exception was Plaintiff did not show that he was 

“under imminent danger of serious physical injury” when the 

 1 “[A] trial court’s judgment . . . normally takes effect 

despite a pending appeal.” Coleman v. Tollefson, ___U.S. ___, 

135 S.Ct. 1759, 1764, ___ L.Ed.2d ___ (May 18, 2015) (ruling 

that a district court’s judgment that counted as a prisoner’s

third strike was to be counted as the third strike even though 

the prisoner was appealing the district court’s judgment).

Case 1:15-cv-00230-KD-M Document 3 Filed 06/22/15 Page 3 of 19
4

Complaint was filed in January, 2015, due to the allegations 

against the named Defendants having transpired from March, 2014, 

through May, 2014. 2015 WL 3459035, at *4. Now, in the present 

action, his allegations are essentially the same and arise

during same time period, March, 2014, to May, 2014, but the time 

of the present Complaint’s filing between April 20, 2015, when 

Plaintiff signed the Complaint, and April 27, 2015, when it was 

postmarked (Doc. 1 at 9-10), is even further removed in time 

from when Plaintiff’s claims arose. See Houston v. Lack, 487 

U.S. 266, 276, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 2385, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988) 

(filing occurs when a prisoner delivers a pleading to prison 

officials for forwarding to the court). Moreover, in both 

Plaintiff’s present and prior actions, he identifies the date of 

March 27, 2014, as when the complained of conduct occurred. 

(Docs. 1 at 4).

Inasmuch as the Court, namely, District Judge DuBose and 

Magistrate Judge Bivins, previously ruled on these allegations, 

the undersigned hereby adopts the reasoning set forth in May v. 

Stone, CA No. 15-25-KD-B, 2015 WL 3459035, adopted (S.D. Ala. 

June 1, 2015), appeal filed, (June 11, 2015), and incorporates 

the majority of its opinion, which is set out below.

Even though May is known to this Court as a 

“three-striker,” the Court has nevertheless reviewed 

the records of the United States District Court for 

the Southern, Middle, and Northern Districts of 

Alabama to verify that he has three or more in forma 

Case 1:15-cv-00230-KD-M Document 3 Filed 06/22/15 Page 4 of 19
5

pauperis actions or appeals that were dismissed on the 

grounds that they were frivolous, malicious, or failed 

to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

From this review, the Court confirmed that May has 

seven actions and appeals that were dismissed based on 

one of the foregoing reasons, namely, May v. Culliver,

CA 10–0121–CG–C (S.D. Ala. Feb. 24, 2012) (failure to 

state a claim), appeal dismissed (11th Cir. Sept. 20, 

2012) (frivolous); May v. Patterson, CA 12–0703–KD–N 

(S.D. Ala. Sept. 5, 2013) (malicious), appeal 

dismissed (11th Cir. June 4, 2014) (frivolous); May v. 

Barber, CA 13–0237–CB–C (S.D. Ala. July 22, 2013) 

(malicious), appeal dismissed (11th Cir. July 24, 

2014) (frivolous); May v. Patterson, App. No. 13–

14499–C (11th Cir. June 26, 2014) (frivolous) 

(corresponding district court case is CA 11–0675–KD–B 

(S.D. Ala. Sept. 9, 2013) (dismissed on defendants’

summary judgment motion)). FN1

 FN1. In addition to these actions and 

appeals, this Court’s docket reflects nine other 

actions filed by May in addition to another 

action filed in the Northern District of Alabama. 

Based on a review of all May’s actions, eight of 

May’s actions contain claims based on medical 

issues related to his head, namely, May v. 

Culliver, CA 10–0121–CG–C; May v. Patterson, CA 

11–0675–KD–B; May v. Barber, CA 13–0237–CB–C; May 

v. Barber, CA 13–0429–CB–M; May v. Hetzel, CA 14–

0155–CG–C; May v. Thomas, CA 13–0385–CB–M; May v. 

Barber, CA 14–0479–WS–N; and May v. Andrews, CA 

15–30–KD–M (pending). Furthermore, five of his 

actions have been dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(g), namely, May v. Barber, CA 13–0429–CB–

M; May v. Howard, CA 13–0557–CG–C; May v. Smith,

CA 14–0171–CG–B; May v. Myers, CA 14–0271–KD–B; 

May v. Thomas, CA 13–0385–CB–M; and May v. 

Andrews, CA 15–0030–KD–M.

*2 In order to avoid the dismissal of the present 

action pursuant to § 1915(g), May must satisfy the 

exception to § 1915(g), which requires that at the 

time of the complaint’s filing, he show that he was 

“under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 

See Adbul–Akabar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307, 315 (3d 

Cir. 2001) (“By using the term ‘imminent,’ Congress 

Case 1:15-cv-00230-KD-M Document 3 Filed 06/22/15 Page 5 of 19
6

indicated that it wanted to include a safety valve for 

the ‘three strikes’ rule to prevent impending harms, 

not those harms that had already occurred.”), cert. 

denied, 533 U.S. 953 (2001); Brown v. Johnson, 387 

F.3d 1344, 1349 (11th Cir. 2004) (“[A] prisoner must 

allege a present imminent danger, as opposed to a past 

danger, to proceed under section 1915(g)”); Medberry 

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

(ruling that the plaintiff must face imminent danger 

of serious physical injury at the time the complaint 

is filed, not at a prior time).

In determining if the exception to § 1915(g) is 

satisfied, “the issue is whether his complaint, as a 

whole, alleges imminent danger of serious physical 

injury.” Brown, 387 F.3d at 1350. To make this 

showing, a plaintiff “must allege and provide specific 

fact allegations of ongoing serious physical injury, 

or a pattern of misconduct evidencing the likelihood 

of imminent serious physical injury[.]” Ball v. 

Allen, CA No. 060496–CG–M, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9706, 

at *4, 2007 WL 484547 at *1 (S.D. Ala. Feb. 8, 2007) 

(citation and quotation marks omitted) (unpublished) 

(Granade, C.J.). Plaintiff has not done this.

II. Complaint. (Doc. 1).

On January 16, 2015, the Court received May’s 

Complaint, which bears a signature date of January 12, 

2015. (Doc. 1 at 7). In the complaint, May identifies 

March 27, 2014, as the date of the complained of 

incident. (Id. at 4). He names as Defendants, Karen 

Stone, Doctor at Holman Correctional Facility 

(“Holman”); Bennie Andrews, Registered Nurse and 

Health Services Administrator at Holman; and Gary 

Hetzel, Warden at Holman. (Id. at 5). According to 

May, on January 27, 2014, he had an appointment with 

Dr. Iliff for frequent and severe headaches. (Id. at 

4). May told Dr. Iliff that his AVMs and shunt issues 

might be causing him headaches. (Id.). Dr. Iliff 

submitted a request for a CT scan of May’s head. 

(Id.).

On March 5, 2014, Defendant Dr. Stone met with 

May to discuss the report of the CT scan of his head 

taken on February 21, 2014. (Id.). In his Complaint, 

Case 1:15-cv-00230-KD-M Document 3 Filed 06/22/15 Page 6 of 19
7

May quotes from the report and takes issue with 

findings in the report, to-wit:

The report reveals that (May) has had a 

cranlotomy in the occiput and there are some 

scattered clips of what are probable 

aneurysm type clips scattered about the 

posterior fossa and this produces flash 

artifacts. This study does suggest 

infarction of a portion of the portion 

medial right cerebellar hemisphere and a 

small portion of the left occipital lobe. 

“There is a VP ‘shunt tube’ (called 

ventricular catheter) that enters the right 

superior occipital bone and goes into the 

right lateral ventricle. The ventricle[s] 

are mild[ly] prominent but not grossly 

enlarged and the ventricles are fairly 

symmetrical. No intracranial bleed or mass 

effect is seen. There is no study for 

comparison.” However, this shunt tube is 

only one part to [his] VP shunt. The report 

didn’t mention any other parts, such as the 

reservoir, valve, or distal. Each VP shunt 

general[ly] has four parts but [his] VP 

shunt is a man made artifact and 

defendant[s] are not in possession of [his] 

medical record[s] from 1990 when the VP 

shunt was first placed in [his] ventricle, 

therefore, the defendants’ really lack 

knowledge about the object therefor, 

standards of care [are] inadequate.

*3 (Id. at 4, 5, 8) (emphasis in original).

On March 27, 2014, May signed up for sick call to 

speak with Defendant Dr. Stone, because the 

radiologist did not mention May’s hydrocephalus in her 

report, and to request to be seen by a neurologist and 

a neurosurgeon so they could review May’s CT scan. 

(Id. at 8–9). May was not seen at sick call but 

instead received a written response by Defendant Dr. 

Stone, which stated:

I do not need to see you again re: the 

matter of a neurologist or neurosurgeon 

consult related to your shunt. As I 

Case 1:15-cv-00230-KD-M Document 3 Filed 06/22/15 Page 7 of 19
8

explained to you on your CCC (Chronic Care 

Clinic) visit of March 5, 2014, the CT of 

your head of February 21, 2014 is the same 

or even slightly improved as compared to the 

CT of July 22, 2009. This is my decision at 

this time.

(Id. at 9). May further alleges that on March 27, 

2014, Defendant Hetzel “failed to ensure that the 

defendants were adequately trained, ... to oversee 

them[,] and [to] discipline them[,]” but without 

providing specific facts to support this claim against 

a corrections official. (Id. at 6).

Plaintiff contends that neither the CT scan of 

February 21, 2014 nor the CT scan of July 22, 2009 

showed that his shunt is working as it is designed to 

work and that Defendant Dr. Stone made a decision that 

requires a specialist’s attention. (Id. at 9). He 

asserts that Dr. Quindlen noted in his report of July 

12, 2010 that Plaintiff’s shunt “has collapsed and 

does not refill.” (Id.).

On April 8, 2014, May filed a grievance 

complaining that he had signed up for sick call to 

request to be examined by a neurologist and/or 

neurosurgeon because hydrocephalus is present. (Id.). 

Defendant Andrews responded “that he had spoken with 

(Dr. Stone) regarding this complaint. She and I concur 

that compared to [his] recent CT scan and previous CT 

scan there had been no change. This is an indication 

that the shunt is working.” (Id.). May maintains that 

neither his “CT scan of July 22, 2014[sic]” nor the CT 

scan of February 21, 2014 “reveals that the VP shunt 

is working as it was designed to work [and that 

Defendants] (Andrews) and (Stone) made a decision that 

required a specialist[’s] attention.” (Id. at 10).

May also asserts:

[His] VP shunt was implanted in the right 

ventricle of his brain to manage the 

pressure from his hydrocephalus, a very 

danger[ous] brain condition due to an 

excessive buildup of cerebro spinal fluid. 

This excessive buildup of cerebro spinal 

fluid has caused [him] daily discomforts 

Case 1:15-cv-00230-KD-M Document 3 Filed 06/22/15 Page 8 of 19
9

such as frequent and se [vere] headaches, 

[his] equilibrium is off, tire[d]ness 

irritability due to defendant's refuse[al] 

to ensure [he] received anything to 

alleviate his pains, and when [he] did not 

get prescribed something to alleviate his 

pains it came after lengthy delays because 

[his] family contacted a higher authority. 

Defendant[s’] obdurate refusal was clearly 

wanton[n]ess.

(Id.).

May further maintains that the total withdrawal 

of medical care constituted an “imminent danger of 

serious physical injury.” (Id. at 8). Moreover, May 

claims that the “VP shunt has collapsed, does not 

refill, and can further deteriorate to the extent that 

it pose[s] an imminent danger of serious physical

injury because [his] VP shunt[’s] malfunction is left 

untreated.” (Id. at 11).

*4 For relief, May requests punitive and 

compensatory damages and all costs taxed to the 

Defendants. (Id. at 7).

III. Analysis.

May’s Complaint was filed between January 12, 

2015, when he signed the document, and January 16, 

2015, when it was received by the Court. (Id. at 7). 

See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276, 108 S.Ct. 

2379, 2385, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988) (When a prisoner 

“deliver[s] [a pleading] to the prison authorities for 

forwarding to the court clerk,” it is deemed filed.); 

see Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 783 (11th 

Cir.1993) (extending Houston to § 1983 actions filed 

by pro se prisoners). In this instance, the exact 

filing date need not be determined because the dates 

that are connected to the named Defendants range from 

March 5, 2014, to April 8, 2014, not near the time of 

the filing of the Complaint in January, 2015. (Doc. 1 

at 7). That is, Defendant Dr. Stone interacted with 

May on March 5, 2014 and near March 27, 2104; 

Defendant Andrews, on April 8, 2014; and Defendant 

Hetzel, on March 27, 2014. (Id. at 5–7).

Case 1:15-cv-00230-KD-M Document 3 Filed 06/22/15 Page 9 of 19
10

However, no allegations are present in the 

Complaint showing that at the time the Complaint was 

filed in January, 2015 that May was in imminent danger 

of a serious physical injury as a result of any of the 

Defendants’ actions or inactions. See Zatler v. 

Wainwright, 802 F.2d 397, 401 (11th Cir. 1986) 

(finding that a plaintiff must establish a causal

connection between a defendant’s actions, orders, 

customs, or policies and a deprivation of the 

plaintiff’s constitutional rights in order to state a 

claim upon which relief may be granted in a § 1983 

action); cf. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U .S. 662, 678, 

129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, (2009) (holding that “a 

complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, 

accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is 

plausible on its face”) (citation omitted). May 

complains about Defendants’ actions or inactions that 

occurred in the past, not near the time of the 

Complaint’s filing. Even though this deficiency 

controls the disposition of this action, the court 

does recognize that May’s underlying hydrocephalus and 

the condition of his VP shunt have been determined 

previously to be a serious medical need. See May v. 

Patterson, CA No. 11–675–KD–B (S.D. Ala.) FN2 

(unpublished) (recognizing Plaintiff’s serious medical 

need), appeal dismissed as frivolous (11th Cir. June 

26, 2014) (holding that the District Court properly 

granted summary judgment) (Doc. 94). However, May made 

no allegations that he was in “imminent danger of 

serious physical injury” at the time of the 

Complaint’s filing. Accordingly, the undersigned 

concludes that May’s allegations do not demonstrate 

that he was “under imminent danger of serious physical 

injury” at the time the Complaint was filed. Brown,

387 F.3d at 1350.

 FN2. In May v. Patterson, CA No. 11–675–

KD–B, the medical Defendants furnished a 

copy of May’s medical records with their 

Special Report. (Doc. 32). These records 

show that on July 12, 2010, Dr. Eugene 

Quindlen, a neurosurgeon at the University 

of South Alabama (“USA”), examined May for 

increased headaches and ataxia. (Doc. 32–3 

at 19). He noted May’s history of having a 

VP shunt placed in his brain in 1990 for 

hydrocephalus and of having a resection of 

Case 1:15-cv-00230-KD-M Document 3 Filed 06/22/15 Page 10 of 19
11

two AVMs in his brain in 1991 and 1992 by 

Dr. Wink Fisher at UAB. (Id.). Earlier, when 

Dr. Quindlen saw May in 2008, he could find 

no particular reason for May’s headaches. 

(Id.). He observed that May had a history of 

a severe stroke, and was taking tegretol for 

seizures. (Id.).

 The medical records show that on July 

12, 2010, May was having severe headaches, 

dizzy spells, and fatigue (id. at 19); his 

gait was slightly more stiff than before; 

and Dr. Quindlen could palpate the shunt, 

which was noted as being collapsed and not 

refilling. (Id. at 20). His review of the xrays showed no evidence of edema and no 

shunt x-rays being performed. (Id.). Dr. 

Quindlen found that May was “healthy 

appearing and in no apparent distress” and 

did not think that May had “severe elevated 

intracranial pressure [, but instead was] 

having poor shunt function.” (Id.). His plan 

was to obtain shunt films and admit May to 

the hospital for a shunt revision. (Id.).

 Shortly thereafter, on September 15, 

2010, pursuant to the warden’s request, the 

prison doctor extensively reviewed May's 

medical records, noting that May has 

hydrocephalus with a malfunctioning shunt, 

which had led to headaches and ataxia. (Doc. 

32–3 at 5). The warden wanted the doctor to 

talk to May because he refused to have 

surgery performed by the neurosurgeon at USA 

and instead wanted to have his original 

surgeon at UAB, who had given him the shunt, 

perform the surgery. (Id.). The UAB option 

was not available. (Id.). Thus, May refused 

to have the recommended surgery. (Id. at 

30).

 On July 24, 2013, a Report and 

Recommendation was entered granting 

Defendants’ summary judgment and finding no

deliberate indifference to May’s serious 

medical needs. (Doc. 69). The extensive 

Case 1:15-cv-00230-KD-M Document 3 Filed 06/22/15 Page 11 of 19
12

medical treatment that May received was 

recounted. After the District Court adopted 

the Report and Recommendation and entered 

Judgment for Defendants (Docs.74, 75), May 

appealed.

 On June 26, 2014, the Eleventh Circuit 

Court of Appeals found May’s appeal to be 

frivolous. (Doc. 94 at 7). The Eleventh 

Circuit noted that May’s taking issue with

Dr. Quindlen’s recommendation was the root 

of the instant action and “cannot sustain a 

claim of deliberate indifference.” (Id.). 

The Court opined that May had “not 

identified any evidence to refute or even 

undermine Dr. Quindlen’s medical judgment, 

or otherwise demonstrate that the Defendant 

rendered inadequate or delayed medical care. 

[Plaintiff] instead has demanded a physician 

of his own choosing.” (Id.) (Emphasis 

added.)

 In a later action, May v. Barber, CA No. 

14–479–WS–N (S.D. Ala. Feb. 26, 2105), some 

of May’s litigation history surrounding 

medical issues with his head is again 

recounted in the Magistrate Judge’s Report 

and Recommendation recommending the 

dismissal of his action pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(g). (Doc. 2). 

IV. Conclusion.

Because May cannot avail himself of § 1915(g)'s 

exception, and on account of his failure to pay the 

$400.00 filing fee at the time he filed his Complaint, 

this action is due to be dismissed without prejudice. 

Dupree, 284 F.3d at 1236 (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);

Vanderberg v. Donaldson, 259 F.3d 1321, 1324 (11th 

Cir.) (holding that the filing fee paid must be paid 

by an inmate subject to § 1915(g) at the time an 

action is commenced), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 976 

(2002). Therefore, it is recommended that this action

Case 1:15-cv-00230-KD-M Document 3 Filed 06/22/15 Page 12 of 19
13

be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(g).

May v. Stone, CA No. 15-25-KD-B (Doc. 4 at 2-12), 2015 WL 

3459035, at *2-5. 

Likewise, the undersigned finds that Plaintiff did not show 

in the present Complaint that he was “under imminent danger of 

serious physical injury” at the time of the present Complaint’s 

filing. That is, the allegations against Defendants occurred 

from March, 2014, to May, 2014, in both the prior and present 

actions, which was at least a year before the filing of this 

action in April, 2015. Thus, Plaintiff did not make the 

required showing that he was “under imminent danger of serious 

physical injury” at the time of the present Complaint’s filing

in order for his Complaint to come within the exception to § 

1915(g). Brown v. Johnson, 387 F.3d 1344, 1349 (11th Cir. 2004) 

(“[A] prisoner must allege a present imminent danger, as opposed 

to a past danger, to proceed under section 1915(g)”); Medberry 

v. Butler, 185 F.3d 1189, 1193 (11th Cir. 1999) (ruling that the 

plaintiff must face imminent danger of serious physical injury 

at the time the complaint is filed, not at a prior time).

IV. Conclusion.

Because Plaintiff cannot avail himself of § 1915(g)’s 

exception, and on account of his failure to pay the $400.00 

filing fee at the time he filed this action, Plaintiff’s action 

Case 1:15-cv-00230-KD-M Document 3 Filed 06/22/15 Page 13 of 19
14

is due to be dismissed without prejudice. Dupree, 284 F.3d at 

1236 (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); 

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

(holding that the filing fee paid must be paid by an inmate 

subject to § 1915(g) at the time an action is commenced), cert. 

denied, 535 U.S. 976 (2002). Therefore, it is recommended that 

this action be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g).

Furthermore, the Court notes that since May v. Stone, CA 

No. 15-25-KD-B, 2015 WL 3459035 (S.D. Ala. June 1, 2015), notice 

of appeal filed (June 11, 2015), was filed near January 16, 

2015, Plaintiff filed five other actions in this Court 

containing claims arising from medical issues with his head, 

which are in addition to his eight prior actions based on 

medical issues with his head, (which are listed in footnote 1 of 

the prior action’s Report and Recommendation, see p.5, supra). 

Plaintiff’s actions filed after January 16, 2015, are: May v. 

Andrews, CA No. 15-30-KD-M (S.D. Ala. April 24, 2015)(§ 1915(g) 

dismissal); May v. Barber, CA No. 15-201-WS-C (pending); May v. 

Myers, CA No. 15-211-KD-M (S.D. Ala. June 2, 2015)(§ 1915(g) 

dismissal); the present action; and May v. Myers, CA No. 15-304-

KD-M (pending – no ifp filed or filing fee paid). Additionally, 

Case 1:15-cv-00230-KD-M Document 3 Filed 06/22/15 Page 14 of 19
15

on March 10, 2015, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals found 

in an earlier action that Plaintiff’s appeal was not frivolous 

and granted Plaintiff in forma pauperis status to proceed with 

his appeal in May v. Hetzel, CA No. 14-155-WS-M, 2014 WL 

5072693, adopted (S.D. Ala. Oct. 7, 2014), appeal filed, (Nov. 

4, 2014); Plaintiff’s underlying action concerns the treatment 

he received for medical issues with his head.

Plaintiff’s repeated filing of claims based on medical 

issues with his head and failure to heed the information 

contained in the Court’s Report and Recommendations with respect 

to an appropriate time for filing an action that comes within § 

1915(g)’s exception against an appropriate defendant is causing 

the Court to consider taking additional measures to curb 

Plaintiff’s litigation activity based on claims concerning his 

head’s medical issues. These measures would be in addition to 

the bar put in place by § 1915(g). See Procup v. Strickland,

792 F.2d 1069, 1072-73 (11th Cir. 1986) (describing sanctions, 

in a pre-PLRA case, that other courts have employed through 

their inherent powers when confronted with an inmate who filed 

repetitious claims, such limiting the number of IFP filings to 

six per year); Smith v. Florida Dep’t of Corrs., 369 F. App’x 

36, 40 (11th Cir. 2010) (approving an injunction that mirrored 

the scope of § 1915(g) so as not to foreclose imminent danger 

Case 1:15-cv-00230-KD-M Document 3 Filed 06/22/15 Page 15 of 19
16

claims)2; Miller v. Donald, 541 F.3d 1091, 1099 (11th Cir. 2008) 

(noting, in its rejection of a “§ 1915(g)-plus” sanction, that 

“[t]he district courts will continue to develop mechanisms that 

protect their own jurisdictions consistent with their inherent 

power and limitations, and § 1915(g)’s relatively narrow ruleand-exception pairing neither subtracts from nor adds to them”);

Henderson v. Morales, No. CV 312-092, 2012 WL 5473057, at *3 

(N.D. Ga. Oct. 10, 2012)(imposing the sanction that the inmate 

submit a sworn statement stating that he is in imminent danger, 

which will subject him to criminal prosecution should he perjure 

himself, after the inmate was previously warned that his tactics 

to circumvent § 1915(g) were an abuse of process and a waste of 

judicial resources which may subject him to sanctions).

Considering that Plaintiff’s appeal is before the Eleventh 

Circuit in May v. Hetzel, CA No. 14-155-WS-M, supra, a 

possibility exists that the Eleventh Circuit may address matters 

related to the medical issues with Plaintiff’s head. In light 

of this pending appeal, this Court looks dimly on Plaintiff’s 

repetitive filing of complaints concerning medical issues with 

his head, particularly those four actions filed after in forma 

pauperis status on appeal was granted on March 10, 2015, namely, 

 2 “Unpublished opinions are not considered binding precedent, but 

they may be cited as persuasive authority.” 11TH CIR. R. 36-2

(2005).

Case 1:15-cv-00230-KD-M Document 3 Filed 06/22/15 Page 16 of 19
17

CA No. 15-201—WS-C, CA No. 15-211-KD-N, CA No. 15-230-KD-M, and 

CA No. 15-304-KD-M. Furthermore, the Court observes that 

Plaintiff’s medical issues with his head were previously before 

the Eleventh Circuit in May v. Patterson, CA No. 11-675-KD-B, 

2014 WL 5072693, adopted (S.D. Ala. Oct. 7, 2014) (granting

defendants’ summary judgment), appeal denied (11th Cir. June 26, 

2014) (finding in an opinion the appeal was frivolous).

Plaintiff is WARNED that his continued filing of repetitive 

in forma pauperis actions involving his head’s medical issues 

that do not satisfy § 1915(g)’s exception may result in the 

imposition of sanctions because he is abusing the Court and 

using its spare resources, which deprives the Court from 

addressing other actions. See Malautea v. Suzuki Motor Co., 987 

F.2d 1536 (11th Cir. 1993) (imposing sanctions after warnings 

were issued), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 863 (1993); Moon v. 

Newsome, 863 F.2d 835 (11th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 

863 (1989); Howard v. Langston, 567 F. App’x 289 (5th Cir. 2014) 

(imposing monetary sanctions after previously warning the § 

1915(g)-barred prisoner against filing frivolous matters and 

advising him to review any pending appeals and dismiss those 

that are frivolous); Smith v. Warden, Hardee Corr. Inst., 597 F. 

App’x 1027, 1031-32 (11th Cir. 2015) (holding that “[a] district 

court may sanction a party for filing a pleading that lacks a 

reasonable factual basis; that is predicated on a frivolous 

Case 1:15-cv-00230-KD-M Document 3 Filed 06/22/15 Page 17 of 19
18

legal theory; or that is submitted in bad faith for an improper 

purpose” and that the prisoner, “who is a frequent filer, should 

bear his own costs to curtail his abusive litigation”). The

Clerk is DIRECTED to reflect prominently on the docket sheet in 

this action that Plaintiff has been was warned about filing 

repetitive in forma pauperis complaints about medical issues 

with his head that do not meet § 1915(g)’s exception.

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO FILE OBJECTIONS 

A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on 

all parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects 

to this recommendation or anything in it must, within fourteen 

(14) days of the date of service of this document, file specific 

written objections with the Clerk of this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1); FED.R.CIV.P. 72(b); S.D. ALA. L.R. 72.4. The parties 

should note that under Eleventh Circuit Rule 3-1, “[a] party 

failing to object to a magistrate judge's findings or 

recommendations contained in a report and recommendation in 

accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives 

the right to challenge on appeal the district court's order 

based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions if the 

party was informed of the time period for objecting and the 

consequences on appeal for failing to object. In the absence of 

a proper objection, however, the court may review on appeal for 

plain error if necessary in the interests of justice.” 11th 

Case 1:15-cv-00230-KD-M Document 3 Filed 06/22/15 Page 18 of 19
19

Cir. R. 3-1. In order to be specific, an objection must 

identify the specific finding or recommendation to which 

objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and 

specify the place in the Magistrate Judge’s report and 

recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An 

objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the 

briefing before the Magistrate Judge is not specific. 

DONE this 22nd day of June, 2015. 

s/ BERT W. MILLING, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00230-KD-M Document 3 Filed 06/22/15 Page 19 of 19