FIL ED U.S . C OUR T O F A PPE ALS ELE VEN TH CIRCUI T Nov emb er 7, 200 5 THO MAS K. KA

HN CLE RK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1632 1 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 04-61158 -CV -CMA BRU CE SIMMO NS , Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant, ve rs us W IL LI AM J. ZL OCH , D istrict Judg e, CHARLENE H. SORRENTINO, TERRENCE J. THOMPSON, D ef en dants -Appe lle es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S tate s D istri ct

Co urt f or the So uth er n D istri ct of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (N ove m be r 7, 200 5) Be fo re CA RN E S, H U L L and W IL SO N , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

Bruce S im

m ons, a fe deral prisoner procee ding pro se, appeals the district co urt’ s de nia l of

his m oti on t o pr oc ee d inf orm a paupe ri s, dis m iss al of his c ivi l co m pla int a ga ins t C hie f D istri ct

Co urt Ju dge W ill iam

J. Z loc h, Ma gis tr at e Judg e Ch ar le ne H . S or

re nti no, and A ssi stant Unit ed S tate s A tto rn ey

T er re nc e J. T hom pson( co lle ct ive ly

r ef er re d to a s “ D ef

en dants ”) , and d en ia l of

his m oti on t o re ope n or r ec onsi de r, pur suant t o 28 U . S. C. § 19 15( g) . O n a ppe al , S im

m ons concedes that he qualifies for the “ three-strikes” provision of § 19 15(g), which prohibi ts the grant of in form a pauperis status to hi m . How ever, he asserts that § 19 15( b) (4 ) carv es out

an “ ind ige nt p ri sone r” e xc ep tio n to the “ thr ee -s tr ike s” pr ovi sio n and a llo w s hi m to pay the f ili ng f ee ove r tim e af

te r fi lin g hi s c om

pla int th ro ug h wi th dr awal s fr om hi s p ris on er ac co un t.

“ W e re view the interpre tation of the filing fee provisio n of the PL RA [P ri son L iti ga tio n R ef

orm A ct ] de nov o. ” Br ow n v. Joh nson , 387 F . 3d 1 344, 134 7 (11th Cir. 2004). W e “ reviewthe denial of [a] m otion for r econsideration for an ab use of dis cr et ion . ” Cl if

f v. P ay co G en er al A m er ic anCr ed its , I nc . , 363 F . 3d 1113 , 112 1 ( 11th C ir . 200 4) . Am oti on f or r ec onsi de ratio n f

ile d w ith in 1 0 day s of the j udgm ent it seeks to reopen is prop erly designated as filed pursuantto Fed. R. Ci v. P. 5 9( e). See Mah on e v . Ray , 32 6 F .3d11 76 , 11 78 n.1 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). Whe n adis tr ic t c ourt r

ule s up on a

ti m el y f ile d R ule 59( e) m oti on, both it s r uli ng3

on the m oti on and the und er ly ing j udgm en t are appe al ab le to thi s C ourt. S ton e v. INS, 51 4 U.S. 3 86 , 40 2- 40 3, 1 15 S.Ct . 15 37 , 15 47 -4 8, 1 31 L.Ed.2d46 5 (1 99 5) . The “ three-strikes” provision of the PLRAprovides Inno e ve nt s ha ll a pr iso ne r br ing a c ivi l a ct ionor

appe al aj udgm en t i n a ci vil a ct ionor

pr oc ee din g un de r thi s se ct ionif th e pr iso ne r ha s, on 3 o r mo r e p r i o r o c c a s i o n s , w h i l e i n c ar c e r a t e d o r d e t a i n e di nan y fa c i l i ty, brough t an action o r ap p eal in a court of the United States that was dis m iss ed on the gr ound s th at

it is fr ivo lou s, m al ic iou s, or f ai ls t o st at e a claim upon which relief m ay be granted, unless the prisoner is und er i mm i n e n td an g e r

o f s e r i o u s p h ys i c a l i n

ju ry. 28 U . S. C. § 19 15( g) . “ A ft er the thi rd m er itl es s su it, the pr iso ne r m ust pay the f ull fi lin g f ee a t the ti m e he ini tiate s su it. ” D upr ee v. P al m er , 284 F . 3d 1 234, 123 6 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 2) (qu ot at io n o m it te d) (em ph as is ad de d) . [T ] he pr ope r pr oc ed

ur e is f or the dis tr ic t c ourt t o dism iss the c om pla int w i th o u tp r e

j u d i c e w h e ni td e n i e s th e p r i s o n e r l e a v e t o p r o c e e di nf o rma paupe ri s purs uant t o th e thr ee s tr ike s pr ovi sio n of § 19 15( g) . T he p r i s o n e r c an n o ts i mp l y p ay th e f i l i n g f e e a f t e r b e i n g d e n i e di nf

o rma paupe ri s st at

us. H e m ust pay the f ili ng fee a t the ti m e he ini tiate s th e su it . Id . (em ph as is in ori gi na l). Section 1915 (b)(4) pr ovid es “ [i] n no event sh all a prisoner be prohibited fr om br ing ing ac ivi l a ct ionor appe al ing ac ivi l or

c ri m ina l j udgm en t f

or the reason that the prisoner has no assets andno m eans by which to pay

the initial partial filing fee. ” 28 U. S. C. § 191 5(b)(4). T he Fifth Circ uit has held th at

“ [s ] ec tio n 19 15( b) (4 ) pe rt ai ns t o th e ini tia l part ia l f ili ng f ee r equir em en t of4

§ 191 5(b)(1). Moreover, it is subject to the ‘ three strikes’ rule of § 1915(g), which ap pli es to § 19 15 a s aw hol e. ” Patto n v. Je ff er son Co rr ec tio na l C en te r, 136 F . 3d 458, 464 -6 5 ( 5thCi r. 199 8) . W e have he ld tha t “ [t ] he onl y e xc ep tio n to se ct ion 1915 (g ) is i f the f

re que nt f ile r pr iso ne r is ‘ unde r im

m ine nt d an ge r of

se ri ous phy sic al inj ur

y . ’ ” Ri ve ra

v. A lli n, 144 F . 3d 7 19, 723 ( 11th C ir . 199 8) ( em pha sis added). T he dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t e rr by de ny ing S im

m ons’ s m oti on t o pr oc ee d in fo rm a paupe ri s and d ism iss ing his c om pla int pur suant t o § 1 915( g) , nor did it ab use it s di sc re tio n by

de ny ing his m oti on t o r eo pe n or r ec onsi de r. S im

m ons co nc ed es that he qua lif

ie s f or the “ thr ee -s tr ike s” pr ovi sio n of § 19 15( g) . T he re is no evidence in the record that Sim m ons paidthe filing fee at the tim e he initiated the sui t or

that he is in i m

m ine nt d an ge r of

se ri ous phy sic al inj ur

y . T he re fo re , the dis tr ic t c ourt pr ope rl y

de nie d hi m

in fo rm a paupe ri s st at

us and d ism iss ed

his co m pla int . D upr ee , 284 F . 3d at 12 36. S im m ons’ s arg um en t tha t § 1915 (b )( 4) al low s hi m

to av oid § 19 15( g) or

pay the f ili ng f ee in ins ta llm en ts a ft er

f ili ng a co m pla int is w ith out

m er it. S ee P atton , 136 F . 3d at 46 4- 65. A cc or din gly , the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a

buse it s di sc re tio n by

de ny ing his m oti on t o r eo pe n or re co nsi de r the c as e, and w e af fi rm the dis tr ic t c ourt. AFFIRMED.