UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JEFFREY LEBLANC,

Plaintiff,

v.

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, 

Defendant. 

/

Case Number: 5:15-CV-10706

HON. JOHN CORBETT O’MEARA

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Michigan state prisoner Jeffrey LeBlanc has filed a pro se civil rights complaint

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint alleges that Defendant, the Federal Government,

was involved in the illegal prosecution of Plaintiff. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and

his immediate release. Plaintiff has requested that he be permitted to proceed in forma

pauperis in this case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) (1996). For the reasons stated below,

the Court will deny Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis and will dismiss the

complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

Indigent prisoners may seek to bring a civil action without prepayment of the fees

and costs for the action. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). A prisoner, however, may be barred

from proceeding in forma pauperis in a civil action under certain circumstances: 

In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a

civil action or proceeding under this section, if the prisoner has, on 3 or

more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought

5:15-cv-10706-JCO-MJH Doc # 3 Filed 03/19/15 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 10
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). 

In short, this “three strikes” provision allows the Court to dismiss a case where the

prisoner seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, if, on three or more previous occasions, a

federal court has dismissed the prisoner’s action because it was frivolous or malicious or

failed to state a claim for which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (1996); 

Dupree v. Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234, 1236 (11th Cir. 2002) (holding that “the proper

procedure is for the 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”). 

Plaintiff has filed four prior civil rights complaints which have been dismissed as

frivolous or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See LeBlanc v.

Kalamazoo County Sheriff, No. 1:14-cv-305 (W.D. Mich. July 29, 2014); LeBlanc v.

State of Michigan, No. 1:14-cv-552 (W.D. Mich. June 19, 2014); LeBlanc v. Kalamazoo

County Government, No. 1:14-cv-308 (W.D. Mich. May 21, 2014); LeBlanc v. State of

Michigan, No. 1:14-cv-237 (W.D. Mich. March 26, 2014). 

A plaintiff may maintain a civil action despite having had three or more civil

actions dismissed as frivolous if the prisoner is “under imminent danger of serious

physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). To establish that his complaint falls within the

2

5:15-cv-10706-JCO-MJH Doc # 3 Filed 03/19/15 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 11
exception to the three strikes rule, a prisoner must allege that he is under imminent danger

at the time that he seeks to file his complaint and proceed in forma pauperis. Vandiver v.

Prison Health Services, Inc., 727 F.3d 580, 585 (6th Cir. 2013) (“[T]he 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.”) (quotation and citation omitted). Plaintiff’s

allegations that Defendant was involved in his illegal prosecution do not fall within the

“imminent danger” exception of § 1915(g). See Fontroy v. Owens, No. 12-4679, 2012

WL 4473216, *2 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 28, 2012) (prisoner’s claim challenging the validity of

his conviction did not allege imminent danger of serious physical injury); Gray v. Clerk,

No. 5:10-cv-46; 2010 WL 553819, *1 (M.D. Ga. Feb. 8, 2010) (“Plaintiff’s claims of

unlawful confinement do not remotely approach allegations of ‘imminent danger of

serious physical injury’”). 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed in

forma pauperis (docket no. 2). Additionally, the Court DISMISSES the complaint

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). This dismissal is without prejudice to Plaintiff filing a

new complaint with payment of the filing fee. 

SO ORDERED. 

s/John Corbett O’Meara 

United States District Judge

Date: March 19, 2015

3

5:15-cv-10706-JCO-MJH Doc # 3 Filed 03/19/15 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 12
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties

of record on this date, March 19, 2015, using the ECF system and/or ordinary mail.

s/William Barkholz 

Case Manager

4

5:15-cv-10706-JCO-MJH Doc # 3 Filed 03/19/15 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 13