IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

ROBERT L. HILLMAN,

Plaintiff,

vs. Civil Action 2:12-cv-850

Judge Frost

Magistrate Judge King

WILLIAM JOSEPH EDWARDS,

et al.,

Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, a state inmate, seeks to initiate this action without

prepayment of fees or costs.

The Prison Litigation Reform Act [“PLRA”] prohibits the grant of

leave to proceed in forma pauperis 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 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)(also known as the “3-Strikes Provision”). 

Plaintiff has, on at least 3 occasions, brought an action in this

Court that was dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which

relief can be granted. Hillman v. Simms, 2:09-cv-810 (S.D. Ohio

December 3, 2009); Hillman v. Simms, et al., 2:08-cv-717 (S.D. Ohio

March 11, 2009); Muff, et al. v. Collins, 2:08-cv-127 (S.D. Ohio

January 29, 2009).1 The 3-Strikes Provision of the PLRA therefore

1

Plaintiff has also filed at least three other cases in this Court which

were dismissed on different grounds. Hillman v. Simms, et al., 2:08-cv-1089; 

Hillman v. Edwards, 2:11-cv-501; Hillman v. O’Brien, et al., 2:11-cv-607.

Case: 2:12-cv-00850-GLF-NMK Doc #: 2 Filed: 09/21/12 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
prohibits plaintiff from proceeding without the prepayment of fees or

costs unless he “is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

The Complaint asserts claims arising out of the alleged failure

of plaintiff’s state court-appointed attorney to pursue an appeal on

plaintiff’s behalf to plaintiff’s satisfaction, and subsequent

litigation instituted by plaintiff. None of the claims sought to be

asserted in this action even suggest that plaintiff “is under imminent

danger of serious physical injury” sufficient to overcome the bar

established by § 1915(g).

It is therefore RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s application for

leave to proceed in forma pauperis be DENIED and that, if he intends

to pursue the action, plaintiff be directed to pay the full $350.00

filing fee within thirty (30) days.

If any party seeks review by the District Judge of this Report

and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen (14) days, file

and serve on all parties objections to the Report and Recommendation,

specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part

thereof in question, as well as the basis for objection thereto. 28

U.S.C. §636(b)(1); F.R. Civ. P. 72(b). Response to objections must be

filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy

thereof. F.R. Civ. P. 72(b). 

The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to

the Report and Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to

de novo review by the District Judge and of the right to appeal the

decision of the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation.

2

Case: 2:12-cv-00850-GLF-NMK Doc #: 2 Filed: 09/21/12 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Smith v. Detroit Federation

of Teachers, Local 231 etc., 829 F.2d 1370 (6th Cir. 1987); United

States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

 s/Norah McCann King 

 Norah McCann King

 United States Magistrate Judge

September 21, 2012

Date

3

Case: 2:12-cv-00850-GLF-NMK Doc #: 2 Filed: 09/21/12 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Case: 2:12-cv-00850-GLF-NMK Doc #: 2 Filed: 09/21/12 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>