Source: https://casetext.com/case/alfred-v-pacheco
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 20:58:49+00:00

Document:
DOCKET NO. 09-CV-1470; SEC. P.
See Alfred v. Forcht Wade Corr. Center, et al. 09-30423 (5th Cir. November 12, 2009), Judgment.
The courts have stated that in order to meet the imminent danger requirement of Section 1915(g), the threat must be "real and proximate." Coleman v. Massey, 2009 WL 2462242 (E.D.Tex. 2009) (citing Ciarpaglini v. Saini, 352 F.3d 328, 330 (7th Cir. 2003)). Allegations of past harm do not suffice; the harm must be imminent or occurring at the time that the complaint or notice of appeal is filed, and the exception refers to "a genuine emergency" where "time is pressing." Heimerman v. Litscher, 337 F.3d 781, 782 (7th Cir. 2003). In passing the statute, Congress intended a safety valve to prevent impending harms, not those which had already occurred. See Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307, 315 (3rd Cir. 2001).
In the present case, Plaintiff has failed to allege facts indicating that he faces a genuine emergency where time is pressing, or even that he faces any substantial risk of harm at all. It is clear that Plaintiff disagrees with the medical treatment post-surgery, but that does not state a claim under the Eighth Amendment, much less sufficiently allege imminent danger.See Norton v. Dimazana, 122 F.3d 286, 292 (5th Cir. 1997), citing Young v. Gray, 560 F.2d 201, 201 (5th Cir. 1977); Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179, 181 (5th Cir. 1985).
Because Plaintiff has not submitted non-conclusory allegations that he faces an imminent threat of serious physical injury and because he did not pay the full filing fee, this lawsuit should be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1915