UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DARRYL McGORE,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 14-14716

v. HONORABLE AVERN COHN

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT 

JUSTICES, KYM WORTHY, and the

MICHIGAN PAROLE BOARD,

Defendants.

________________________________/

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF THE FILING FEE

AND

DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE

I.

This is a pro se civil rights action for money damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff Darryl McGore is a state prisoner at the Carson City Correctional Facility in Carson

City, Michigan. His complaint challenges a provision of the Antiterrorism and Effective

Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). Specifically, plaintiff takes issue with 28 U.S.C. §

2244(b), as amended by AEDPA, which governs second or successive habeas corpus

petitions filed by state prisoners under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Plaintiff claims that § 2244(b) is

unconstitutional and that courts have retroactively applied § 2244(b) to prevent him for filing

a successive habeas petition. As will be explained, plaintiff appears to seek to proceed

without prepayment of the filing fee; he cannot do so. Accordingly, plaintiff will be denied

permission to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee and the complaint will be

dismissed without prejudice. 

II.

2:14-cv-14716-AC-MKM Doc # 4 Filed 01/08/15 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 76
Plaintiff commenced this action on December 12, 2014, by filing his pro se complaint

under § 1983 and a certified statement of his trust fund account at the Carson City

Correctional Facility. Plaintiff did not prepay the filing fee for this action, nor submit an

application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court nevertheless assumes from

the filing of his certified financial statement that plaintiff seeks leave to proceed without

prepayment of the filing fee.

Under the “three strikes” provision of the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act of 1996

(PLRA), a prisoner may not bring a civil action or appeal without prepayment of the filing fee 

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.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

Plaintiff has been a prolific litigator in federal court. A review of court records reveals

that more than three of plaintiff’s previous cases were dismissed as frivolous or for failure to

state a claim. See McGore v. Michigan Supreme Court Judges, No. 1:94-cv-00517 (W.D.

Mich. Jan. 25, 1995); McGore v. Nardi, et al., No. 2:93-cv-00137 (W.D. Mich. Aug. 2, 1993);

McGore v. Stine, et al., No. 2:93-cv-00112 (W.D. Mich. July 26, 1993); McGore v. Stine, et

al., No. 2:93-cv-00077 (W.D. Mich. Apr. 30, 1993). Although these dismissals occurred

before the 1996 effective date of the PLRA, they “may be counted toward the ‘three strikes’

referred to in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).” Wilson v. Yaklich, 148 F.3d 596, 604 (6th Cir. 1998). 

Moreover, more recently, plaintiff has been warned in prior cases that he has “three

strikes” and that he may not proceed without prepayment of the filing fee for his complaints. 

2

2:14-cv-14716-AC-MKM Doc # 4 Filed 01/08/15 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 77
See McGore v. Lutz, et al., No. 2:09-cv-13031 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 11, 2009); McGore v. Rich,

et al., No. 1:09-cv-00395 (W.D. Mich. May 12, 2009, and July 6, 2009); McGore v. McKee,

et al., No. 1:04-cv-00421 (W.D. Mich. June 29, 2004, and Aug. 11, 2004); McGore v. Gundy,

et al., No. 1:00-cv-00155 W.D. Mich. Mar. 15, 2000, May 3, 2000, and June 26, 2000). 

Therefore, plaintiff may proceed without prepayment of the filing fee for this action only if he

is in “imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

Plaintiff alleges that § 2244(b) violates his right of access to the courts and has

caused him physical injury. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, however, has stated

that,

to allege sufficiently imminent danger, . . . “the threat or prison condition must

be real and proximate and the danger of serious physical injury must exist at

the time the complaint is filed.” Ritter v. Kinder, 290 Fed. Appx. 796, 797 (6th

Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Thus a prisoner’s assertion

that he or she faced danger in the past is insufficient to invoke the exception.” 

Id. at 797–98; see also Taylor [v. First Medical Management, 508 Fed. Appx.

488, 492 (6th Cir. 2012)] (“Allegations of past dangers are insufficient to

invoke the exception.”); Percival v. Gerth, 443 Fed. Appx. 944, 946 (6th Cir.

2011) (“Assertions of past danger will not satisfy the ‘imminent danger’

exception.”); cf. Pointer [v. Wilkinson, 502 F.3d 369, 371 n.1 (6th Cir. 2007)]

(implying that past danger is insufficient for the imminent-danger exception).

In addition to a temporal requirement, [the Sixth Circuit has] explained

that the allegations must be sufficient to allow a court to draw reasonable

inferences that the danger exists. To that end, “district courts may deny a

prisoner leave to proceed pursuant to § 1915(g) when the prisoner’s claims of

imminent danger are conclusory or ridiculous, or are clearly baseless (i.e. are

fantastic or delusional and rise to the level of irrational or wholly incredible).” 

Rittner, 290 Fed. Appx. at 798 (internal quotation marks and citations

omitted); see also Taylor, 508 Fed. Appx. at 492 (“Allegations that are

conclusory, ridiculous, or clearly baseless are also insufficient for purposes of

the imminent-danger exception.”).

Vandiver v. Prison Health Services, Inc., 727 F.3d 580, 585 (6th Cir. 2013).

3

2:14-cv-14716-AC-MKM Doc # 4 Filed 01/08/15 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 78
14-14716 McGore v. United States Supreme Court, et al

Plaintiff has failed to indicate how he has been physically injured, and he has not

demonstrated that he was in “imminent danger of serious physical injury” when he filed his

complaint. His allegation of “imminent danger” is conclusory. As such, plaintiff has failed to

establish that his complaint falls within the exception to § 1915(g).

III.

For the reasons stated above, plaintiff’s implied request to proceed without

prepayment of the filing fee for this action (Doc. 2) is DENIED. The complaint (Doc. 1) is

DISMISSED under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). This dismissal is without prejudice to the filing of a

new complaint with payment of the $400.00 filing fee. 

Finally, the Court certifies that an appeal from this order would be frivolous and,

therefore, could not be taken in good faith, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), or without prepayment of

the appellate filing fee, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

SO ORDERED.

S/Avern Cohn 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: January 8, 2015

Detroit, MI

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to the attorneys of record

on this date, January 8, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Sakne Chami 

Case Manager, (313) 234-516

4

2:14-cv-14716-AC-MKM Doc # 4 Filed 01/08/15 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 79