UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

KARLOS LATWIAN HARRIS, #297127,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF WASHTENAW, ET AL.,

Defendants. 

/

Case Number: 2:09-CV-13077

HON. ANNA DIGGS TAYLOR

ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

AND SUMMARILY DISMISSING COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Karlos Latwian Harris, currently confined at the Hiawatha Correctional Facility

in Kincheloe, Michigan, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Plaintiff has requested that he be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in this case. See 28

U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) (1996). For the reasons stated below, the Court will deny Plaintiff leave to

proceed in forma pauperis and will dismiss the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that Washtenaw County and thirteen additional defendants,

including several state court judges and several assistant public defenders, have conspired to

“eradicate Plaintiff’s very right to self-exist free from Defendant’s foreign governmental

interference and despite well-establish[ed] International Laws condemning such tyranny.” 

Complaint at 2. 

Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321

(1996), a prisoner is prevented from proceeding in forma pauperis in a civil action under certain

circumstances. The statute states, in relevant part:

C L O S E D

2:09-cv-13077-ADT-MJH Doc # 8 Filed 08/27/09 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 186
2

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.

42 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

In short, this “three strikes” provision allows the 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.”). Plaintiff has filed three prior civil rights complaints which have

been dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See

Harris v. Mich. Dep’t of Corrections, No. 08-13383 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 21, 2008) (Murphy, J.);

Harris v. Mich., No. 08-14374 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 31, 2008) (Friedman, J.); Harris v. G. Robert

Cotton Correctional Facility, No. 09-11006 (E.D. Mich. March 27, 2009) (Tarnow, J.). 

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 statutory 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. Malik v. McGinnis, 293 F.3d 559, 562 (2d Cir.

2002) (holding that imminent danger exception requires that the danger exist at time complaint is

2:09-cv-13077-ADT-MJH Doc # 8 Filed 08/27/09 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 187
3

filed); Ashley v. Dilworth, 147 F.3d 715, 717 (8th Cir. 1998) (plaintiff sufficiently alleged

imminent danger of serious physical injury where he claimed that he was placed near inmates on

his enemy list and subject to ongoing danger); Banos v. O’Guin, 144 F.3d 883, 885 (5th Cir.

1998) (past body cavity searches failed to establish imminent danger of serious physical injury);

Luedtke v. Bertrand, 32 F. Supp. 2d 1074, 1077 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (allegation of past physical

injury is insufficient to meet statutory exception). 

In this case, Plaintiff essentially challenges the processes and procedures leading to the

conviction for which is presently incarcerated. These claims do not raise the danger of physical

harm. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is

DENIED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE. Should Plaintiff wish to pursue the allegations contained in his complaint, he

must submit payment of the $350.00 filing fee within 30 days. Upon receipt of the filing fee, the

Court will re-open the case and review the complaint to determine whether it should be served or

should be summarily dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order

and Preliminary Injunction (Docket #2) is DENIED AS MOOT. 

DATED: August 27, 2009 s/Anna Diggs Taylor

ANNA DIGGS TAYLOR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2:09-cv-13077-ADT-MJH Doc # 8 Filed 08/27/09 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 188
4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing Order of Dismissal was served upon Plaintiff by First

Class U.S. mail on August 27, 2009.

Karlos Harris, #297127 

West Shoreline Correctional Facility 

2500 South Sheridan Rd. 

Muskegon Heights, MI 49444-3309 s/Johnetta M. Curry-Williams

Case Manager

2:09-cv-13077-ADT-MJH Doc # 8 Filed 08/27/09 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 189