1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

 SOUTHERN DIVISION 

JEFFREY LeBLANC, 

 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 15-cv-12021 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

 

CHERI ATWOOD, 

 Defendant. 

__________________________________________________________________/ 

ORDER (1) DENYING REQUEST TO PROCEED WITHOUT 

PREPAYMENT OF FEES AND COSTS AND (2) DISMISSING 

COMPLAINT (ECF #1) WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

 On June 3, 2015, Plaintiff Jeffery LeBlanc (“Plaintiff”) filed a pro-se civilrights complaint against Defendant Cheri Atwood pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

(See the “Complaint,” ECF #1.) Plaintiff is an inmate confined at the Macomb 

Regional Correctional Facility in New Haven, Michigan. Upon review of the 

Complaint and Plaintiff’s history of litigation in the federal courts, the Court 

concludes that it must dismiss the Complaint without prejudice pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) provides that “[t]he clerk of each district court shall 

require the parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in such court, 

whether by original process, removal or otherwise, to pay a filing fee....” Plaintiff 

2:15-cv-12021-MFL-MJH Doc # 3 Filed 06/11/15 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 8
2

has not paid the required filing fee. Instead, Plaintiff attaches an “affidavit” to the 

Complaint (the “Affidavit”) in which he “declare[s] that [he is] unable to pay the 

cost of these proceedings” and that he has no income or assets. (ECF #1 at 4, Pg. 

ID 4.) Because Plaintiff has not submitted the necessary filing fee, the Court will 

construe the Affidavit as a request to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). 

 A prisoner is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis if (1) he 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” and (2) he is not “under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(g). See also Thaddeus-X v. Blatter, 175 F. 3d 378, 400 (6th Cir. 

1999); Witzke v. Hiller, 966 F. Supp. 538, 540 (E.D. Mich. 1997). This “three 

strikes” rule prevents Plaintiff from proceeding in forma pauperis here. 

 First, Plaintiff has more than used up his “three strikes.” Indeed, federal 

courts have dismissed at least six prior civil-rights complaints Plaintiff has filed for 

being frivolous, malicious, or failing to state a claim upon which relief could be 

granted. See LeBlanc v. Moody, No. 15-cv-10469 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 18, 2015) 

(Murphy, J.); LeBlanc v. Schuette, No. 15-cv-10555 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 17, 2015) 

(Friedman, J.); LeBlanc v. Kalamazoo County Sheriff, No. 14-cv-305 (W.D. Mich. 

2:15-cv-12021-MFL-MJH Doc # 3 Filed 06/11/15 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 9
3

July 29, 2014); LeBlanc v. State of Michigan, No. 14-cv-552 (W.D. Mich. June 19, 

2014); LeBlanc v. Kalamazoo County Government, 14-cv-308 (W.D. Mich. May 

21, 2014); LeBlanc v. State of Michigan, No. 14-cv-237 (W.D. Mich. Mar. 26, 

2014.) For this reason, earlier this year, the Court denied Plaintiff leave to proceed 

in forma pauperis and dismissed his complaint in a separate action he had filed. 

See LeBlanc v. Romanowksi, 15-cv-10483 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 2, 2015) (Leitman, J.). 

Nothing has changed since March. 

 Second, Plaintiff has not alleged in the Complaint any facts that would 

establish that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. Such an 

imminent danger must be contemporaneous with a complaint’s filing. See 

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”). Although Plaintiff 

claims that he is wrongfully incarcerated, Plaintiff’s challenges to the processes 

that lead to his criminal conviction “do not raise the danger of physical harm” so as 

to come within the imminent danger provision of §1915(g). Childress v. 

Quisenberry, 11-cv-2096, 2011 WL 5166433, *2 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 31, 2011). 

Plaintiff is therefore not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis and the Court will 

dismiss his Complaint pursuant to § 1915(g). See, e.g., Mulazim v. Michigan Dept. 

of Corrections, 28 Fed. App’x. 470, 472 (6th Cir. 2002) (affirming dismissal under 

2:15-cv-12021-MFL-MJH Doc # 3 Filed 06/11/15 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 10
4

the “three strikes” rule).

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request to 

proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED and Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF #1) is 

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: June 11, 2015 

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

parties and/or counsel of record on June 11, 2015, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5113 

2:15-cv-12021-MFL-MJH Doc # 3 Filed 06/11/15 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 11