In Rivera v. Allin, 144 F.3d 719, 731 (11 Cir. 1998), the Court determined that the “three strikes” 1 th

provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which requires frequent filer prisoner indigents to prepay the entire filing

fee before federal courts may consider their cases and appeals, “does not violate the First Amendment right

to access the courts; the separation of judicial and legislative powers; the Fifth Amendment right to due

process of law; or the Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection, as incorporated through the Fifth

Amendment.” 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

VICTOR ANTONIO GLOVER, #122400, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:06-CV-704-WKW

 ) [WO] 

)

BETTY TEAGUE, et al., )

)

 Defendants. )

ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On August 9, 2006, Victor Antonio Glover [“Glover”], a state inmate and frequent

litigant in this court, filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to the

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Court Doc. No. 2. However, under the directives of

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner is not allowed to bring a civil action or proceed on appeal in

forma pauperis if he “has, on 3 or more 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.” 

1

The records of this court establish that Glover, while incarcerated or detained, has on

Case 2:06-cv-00704-WKW-CSC Document 4 Filed 09/14/2006 Page 1 of 4
2

at least four occasions had civil actions dismissed as frivolous, malicious, for failure to state

a claim and/or for asserting claims against defendants who were immune from suit pursuant

to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The cases on which this court relies in finding a

violation of § 1915(g) are: (1) Glover v. Alabama Dept. of Corrections, et al., Case No.

2:01-CV-1048-WHA (M.D. Ala. 2002); (2) Glover v. Blackledge, et al., Case No. 2:96-CV1081-ID (M.D. Ala. 1996); (3) Glover v. DeLoach, et al., Case No. 2:95-CV-1293-WHA

(M.D. Ala. 1995); and (4) Glover v. Dennis, et al., Case No. 2:95-CV-1125-ID (M.D. Ala.

1996). 

In the instant civil action, Glover asserts that in 1982 correctional officials “stripped

[him] of (22) years and (10) months [of] good time without a proper due process hearing, and

. . . removed [him] from earning further deductions of [incentive] good time off his

sentences.” Plaintiff’s Complaint at 2. Glover further complains that defendants Teague and

Whaley “refused to correct this mistake” for eighteen years during which he did not earn

good time. Id. at 3. The allegations contained in the complaint fail to demonstrate that

Glover was “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time he filed this cause

of action as is required to meet the “imminent danger” exception to the application of 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g). Medberry v. Butler, 185 F.3d 1189 (11 Cir. 1999). Based on the th

foregoing, the court concludes that Glover’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis

is due to be denied and this case dismissed without prejudice as Glover failed to pay the

requisite $350 filing fee upon the initiation of this cause of action. Dupree v. Palmer, 284

Case 2:06-cv-00704-WKW-CSC Document 4 Filed 09/14/2006 Page 2 of 4
3

F.3d 1234, 1236 (11 Cir. 2002)(emphasis in original) (“[T]he proper procedure is for the th

district court to dismiss the complaint without prejudice when it denies the prisoner leave to

proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to the provisions of § 1915(g)” because the prisoner

“must pay the filing fee at the time he initiates the suit.”). 

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED that the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by Victor

Antonio Glover on August 9, 2006 (Court Doc. No. 2) be and is hereby DENIED.

Additionally, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case be

dismissed without prejudice for Glover’s failure to pay the full filing fee upon initiation of

this case. 

 It is further 

ORDERED that on or before September 27, 2006 the parties may file objections to

the Recommendation. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the

Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which the party is objecting. Frivolous, conclusive

or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are advised

that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable.

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and advisements in the

Magistrate Judge's Recommendation shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the

District Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar the party from

Case 2:06-cv-00704-WKW-CSC Document 4 Filed 09/14/2006 Page 3 of 4
4

attacking on appeal factual findings in the Recommendation accepted or adopted by the

District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v.

Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d

33 (11th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981, en

banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit 

handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981.

Done this 14 day of September, 2006. th

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00704-WKW-CSC Document 4 Filed 09/14/2006 Page 4 of 4