UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

REGINALD EL, #163990,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 14-cv-14957

 HONORABLE GERALD E. ROSEN

C/O ROBINSON, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER 

DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND

SUMMARILY DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Plaintiff Reginald El, also known as Reginald Miles and Sheik Hasan El,1 is

a state prisoner presently confined at the Macomb Correctional Facility in New

Haven, Michigan. He recently filed a pro se civil complaint against several state

officials, including Michigan Governor Rick Snyder, and various individuals

associated with the Michigan Department of Corrections. For the reasons that

follow, the complaint will be summarily DISMISSED without prejudice.

I. Background

Plaintiff’s complaint is largely unintelligible, but it appears to allege, among

other things, that defendant Robinson falsely charged Plaintiff with prison

1

See http://mdocweb.state.mi.us/OTIS2/otis2profile.aspx?mdocNumber

=163990.

2:14-cv-14957-GER-DRG Doc # 4 Filed 07/29/15 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 34
misconduct for possessing a weapon (a padlock attached to a rope). Exhibits to the

complaint indicate that Plaintiff was found guilty of the charge on December 16,

2014, and punished with ten days of detention and thirty days loss of privileges. 

Plaintiff contends that the charge was retaliation for Plaintiff’s threat to file a

grievance against Robinson. He seeks a one-man grand jury and a criminal

investigation into obstruction of justice, retaliation, falsification of documents, and

violations of his constitutional rights. 

II. Analysis

Plaintiff did not prepay the filing fee for this action, and under the “three

strikes” provision of the Prison 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). 

A review of plaintiff’s litigation history in federal court reveals that three of

his previous cases were dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim. See

Miles El v. United States, et al., No. 2:06-cv-264 (W.D. Mich. June 4, 2007); Miles

El v. MDOC, et al., No. 2:97-cv-39 (W.D. Mich. Aug. 4, 1997); and Miles El v.

2

2:14-cv-14957-GER-DRG Doc # 4 Filed 07/29/15 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 35
McGinnis, No. 2:97-cv-52 (W.D. Mich. Aug. 1, 1997). Furthermore, Plaintiff has

previously been warned that he has three “strikes” and that he may not proceed

without prepayment of the filing fee for his complaints. See “Order Denying

Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis - Three Strikes,” Miles El v. Holder, et al.,

No. 2:10-cv-258 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 13, 2010). Consequently, Plaintiff may not

proceed without prepayment of the filing fee for this action unless he is in

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

[T]o 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 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

3

2:14-cv-14957-GER-DRG Doc # 4 Filed 07/29/15 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 36
exception.”).

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

Plaintiff has not alleged that he was in imminent danger of serious physical

injury when he filed his complaint. Although he does allege that defendant

Robinson attacked him with the same type of weapon that he (Plaintiff) was

charged with possessing, he has not shown that a real and proximate danger of

serious physical injury existed at the time he filed his complaint. Additionally, the

allegation about Robinson attacking Plaintiff is conclusory, as Plaintiff has not

alleged any facts in support of this claim. As such, Plaintiff has failed to

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

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED THAT Plaintiff may not proceed without prepayment of

the filing fee for this action. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Plaintiff’s complaint is summarily

DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). In addition, 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).

4

2:14-cv-14957-GER-DRG Doc # 4 Filed 07/29/15 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 37
s/Gerald E. Rosen 

Chief Judge, United States District Court

Dated: July 29, 2015

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties

and/or counsel of record on July 29, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Julie Owens 

Case Manager, (313) 234-5135

5

2:14-cv-14957-GER-DRG Doc # 4 Filed 07/29/15 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 38