Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

DUKE F. CRANFORD,

D.O.C. # 123716,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 4:10cv187-MP/WCS

E. POLLEY, JR., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, initiated this civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. §

1983 on May 17, 2010. Doc. 1. Plaintiff simultaneously filed a motion seeking leave to

proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Doc. 2. Plaintiff is incarcerated in

the Florida Department of Corrections and the address on his complaint shows he is

currently located at Taylor Correctional Institution. Doc. 1. Plaintiff complains about the

denial of his First Amendment rights to practice his religious faith, Muslim, and seeks

injunctive relief as well as monetary damages. 

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA), provides that a prisoner may

not bring a civil action in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915:
Page 2 of 3

. . . if the prisoner has, on 3 or more 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). Plaintiff has had three or more prior prisoner actions dismissed in

this District on the grounds that they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim. 

The dismissed cases include cases numbered 1:08cv160-MP/AK;1

 4:10cv10-RH/WCS,

and 1:09cv224-MP/AK. Additionally, Plaintiff's appeal of case 1:09cv224 was dismissed

on May 13, 2010, as frivolous by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. All of these

cases were dismissed for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

Therefore, Plaintiff has more than three dismissals under § 1915(e)(2)(B) and is not

entitled to proceed in forma pauperis in federal court. 

The instant complaint does not allege that Plaintiff is in imminent danger from the

Defendants. This case concerns the alleged denial of religious liberty. 

Because Plaintiff has had at least three prior dismissals and is not under

imminent danger of serious physical injury, Plaintiff may not submit a complaint in this

Court without full payment of the filing fee at the time of case initiation. This case

should be dismissed, dismissal being without prejudice to Plaintiff presenting his claims

1

 While Plaintiff lists case 1:08cv160-MP/AK in his listing of prior cases, doc. 1,

Plaintiff fails to list the date of dismissal or give a reason for its dismissal. The case was

dismissed on November 20, 2009, for failure to state a claim. As an additional noted,

Plaintiff did not disclose another prior case he had filed in this Court on the complaint

form, doc. 1. Plaintiff had also filed case 1:06cv182-MP/AK as a civil rights case on

September 15, 2006. The action was deemed, however, to be an unauthorized second

or successive habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and summarily dismissed on

April 19, 2007.

Case No. 4:10cv187-MP/WCS
Page 3 of 3

in a complaint for which he pays the full $350.00 filing fee at the time of submission of

the complaint.

In light of the foregoing, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s case be

DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), because Plaintiff did

not pay the filing fee at the time of case initiation and Plaintiff is not entitled to proceed

in forma pauperis in this Court. 

IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on May 20, 2010.

 s/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and

recommendations within 15 days after being served with a copy of this report and

recommendation. A party may respond to another party's objections within 10 days

after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to file specific objections limits the

scope of review of proposed factual findings and recommendations.

Case No. 4:10cv187-MP/WCS