UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JEFFREY LEBLANC,

Plaintiff,

v.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Defendant. 

/

Case Number: 15-12380

HON. AVERN COHN

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DENYING PETITIONER’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

(Doc. 2)

AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT (Doc. 1) WITHOUT PREJUDICE

I.

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

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that Defendant, the People of the State of

Michigan, subjected him to a fraudulent trial. He seeks money damages and injunctive

relief. Plaintiff has also requested that he be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). For the reasons that follow, plaintiff’s application to

proceed in forma pauperis will be denied and the complaint will be dismissed under 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

II.

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

2:15-cv-12380-AC-EAS Doc # 4 Filed 07/15/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 11
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). 

In short, this “three strikes” provision allows a 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”). 

However, 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

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). 

III.

Here, 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. 

2

2:15-cv-12380-AC-EAS Doc # 4 Filed 07/15/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 12
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). Thus, he is subject

to the “three strikes” rule. He therefore cannot proceed in forma pauperis unless the

complaint falls within the “imminent danger” exception.

Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendant was involved in his illegal prosecution and

conviction 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’”). 

IV.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is

DENIED. The complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to plaintiff’s right to

refile the complaint with payment of the full filing fee. 

SO ORDERED. 

s/Avern Cohn 

AVERN COHN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: July 15, 2015

Detroit, Michigan

3

2:15-cv-12380-AC-EAS Doc # 4 Filed 07/15/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 13