FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT OCTOB ER 4, 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 11440 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 06 -000 06 -C V -6 W A R R E N S K I L L E RN , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s D E P U T Y W A R D E N P A U L , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( O c t ob e r 4, 2006) B efo re T JO F L A T , C A RN E S an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A pp el l anti s aG eorgi a pri son i nm at e. O n F ebruary7, 20 06 , the di stri ctAppellant also filed notices of appeal f rom the court’s denial of his motion to reconsider 1 and motion to “ set th ere c ord s traight. ”Hedo e s n ot m enti on the sein his b ri e f, ho wever, and , th us , they aredeeme d abandone d as to a ny claims thereunder. SeeIrwin v. Ha wk, 40 F.3d 347, 347 n.1 (11th Cir. 1994) (stating that a pro se litigant abandons an issue by failingto challeng e it on appeal). 2 court , adop t i ng as i t s opi ni on the m agi stra t e j ud ge’ s r ec om m endat i on , di sm i ss ed hi s pr o s e 42 U . S . C . § 1983 c om pl a i nta s ba rr e d by the “ thr e e - s tr i ke s ” pr ovi s i on of 28 U . S . C . § 1 91 5(g) and the fa ctthathe “ ha[d] no tsuff i ci ent l y dem on stra t ed an i m m i nentdang erw hi ch w ou l d al l ow hi m t o fi l e hi s c as e i n f o rm a p a u

p e r is . ” He ap p e a ls , c o n te n d in g th a t th e d e p r iv a tio n o f h is m e d ic a tio n m a y h a v e c au s e d h im to s u f f e rd e a th o rs e r io u s p h y s ic a l in ju ry . H e c la im s th a t h e w a s n o t in ap o s itio n to

“ de t a i l [ t o the di s tr i c tc ourt ] w ha ts ortof he a rtm e di c a t i on a nd how l i f e - thr e a t e ni ng i t s de pr i va t i on i s [ , ] ” a nd c om m on s e ns e di c t a t e s tha tthe de pr i va t i on of a ny p r e s c r ib e d m e d ic a tio n “m a y h a v e d e a d ly o rs e r io u s c o n s e q u e n c e s .” H e u r g e s u s to

“ pres um e i m m i nentdang er ” w henever a pri soner c om pl ai ns of a m edi ca l i ss ue. 1 A s a n i ni t i a l m a tt e r , appe l l a ntha s notdi s put e d the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s f i ndi ng thathe had fi l ed atl ea stthree pri or ac t i on s, and, thu s, i s a“ fr equentfi l er , ” s ubj ec t to § 1 9 1 5 ( g ) . S e e B r o w n v . J o h n s o n , 3 8 7 F .3 d 1 3 4 4 , 1 3 4 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . T h e P ri so n L i t i g at i o n R efo rm A ct(“ P L R A ”) co n t ai n s a “ th ree-stri k es” p ro v i si o n , w h i ch st at es: I n no e ve nts ha l l apr i s one rbr i ng ac i vi l a c t i on orappe a l aj udgm e nt i n ac i vi l a c t i on orpr oc e e di ng unde rthi s s e c t i on i f the pr i s one rha s , on 3 orm or e pr i oroc c a s i ons , w hi l e i nc a r c e r a t e d orde t a i ne d i n a ny3

fa ci l i ty, brou gh tan ac t i on or appeal i n a courtof the U ni t ed S t at es that w a s d is m is s e d o n th e g r o u n d s th a t it is f r iv o lo u s , m a lic io u s , o rf a ils to s ta te ac la im u p o n w h ic h r e lie f m a y b e g r a n te d , u n le s s th e p r is o n e ris u n d er i m m i n en td an g er o f seri o u s p h ysi cal i n j u ry. 28 U . S . C . § 1 91 5(g) (e m ph as i s a dd ed). “ A ft erthe thi rd m er i t l es s s ui t , the pri soner m us tpa y the f

ul l f i l i ng f e e a tthe t i m e he i ni t i a t e s s ui t . ” D upr e e v. P a l m e r , 284 F . 3d 1 2 3 4 , 1 2 3 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) ( q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ) . “T h e p u rp o s e o f th e P L R A is to c urt a i l abus i ve pr i s one rl i t i ga t i on. ” I d. “T h e o n ly e x c e p tio n to s e c tio n 1 9 1 5 ( g ) is if th e f r e q u e n t f ile rp r is o n e ris

‘ unde ri m m i ne ntda nge rof s e r i ous phy s i c a l i nj ury . ’ ” R i ve r av. A l l i n, 144 F . 3d 71 9, 72 3 (11 th C i r. 19 98 ) ( ci t at i on om i tt ed). A pri soner a l l eges i m m i nentdang er of s e r i ous phy s i c a l i nj ury , w he n he a l l e ge s tha tat ot a l w i thdr a w a l of tr e a tm e ntf

or seri o u s d i seases, i n cl u d i n g h u m an i m m u n o d efi ci en cy v i ru s (“ H IV ”) an d h ep at i t i s, w i l l cause hi m t o suffe r f rom se vere on go i ng com pl i ca t i on s, i ncre as ed susc ept i bi l i ty t o v ar i ou s i l l ness es , and a rapi d d et er i orat i on of hi s c on di t i on . S ee B r o w n , 3 8 7 F .3 d a t 1 3 5 0 . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t e rrb y d is m is s in g th e c o m p la in t in th is c a s e . U n lik e th e p r is o n e rin B r o w n , 3 8 7 F .3 d a t1 3 4 6 - 4 7 , 1 3 4 9 - 5 0 , w h o a lle g e d s p e c if ic f a c t s aboutthe c ons e que nc e s of be i ng de pr i ve d m e di c a t i on f orhi s H I V a nd h e p a titis c o n d itio n s , ap p e lla n t m e r e ly h a s a lle g e d th a t d e p r iv a tio n o f h is m e di c a t i on m a y r e s ul ti n s uf f e r i ng s e r i ous phy s i c a l i nj ury . H e di d notpr e s e nta ny4

d escri p t i o n o f th e co n d i t i o n g i v i n g ri se t o h i s p rescri p t i o n fo r h eartd i sease m e di c a t i on, a nd ne ve ra l l e ge d tha the s uf f e r e d a ny phy s i c a l i nj ury a s ar e s ul tof not r e c e i vi ng the m e di c a t i on. G i ve n tha tthe P L R A w a s e na c t e d t o “ c ur t a i l abus i ve pr i s one rl i t i ga t i on, ” s e e D upr e e , 284 F . 3d a t1236, appe l l a nt ’ s va gue s t a t e m e nt s do nots a t i s f y the di c t a t e s of

§ 1915( g) . T he di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de c i s i on i s the r e f or e due to b e , a n d is , AF F I RME D.