Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Baez v. Sabine

United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Statesboro Division

August 31, 2017

ROBERTO BAEZ, Plaintiff,
v.
ROY SABINE; FNU SMITH; and FNU TOLBERT, Defendants.

          ORDER

          J. RANDAL HALL, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.

         Presently before the Court are Plaintiffs Objections, (doc. 5), to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation dated February 14, 2017, (doc. 4). Plaintiff has also filed pleadings labeled as a Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint, (doc. 6), and an "Amended Complaint, " (doc. 7), which the Court construes as additional Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.[1] After an independent and de novo review of the entire record, the undersigned OVERRULES Plaintiffs Objections, CONCURS with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation as the opinion of the Court.

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff filed this cause of action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to contest certain conditions of his confinement at Georgia State Prison in Reidsville, Georgia. (Doc. 1.) In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges he suffers from a number of medical conditions that cause him chronic pain. (Id. at pp. 11-12.) To manage his pain, Plaintiff must take pain medication daily. "[P]rior [to] being transferred [to Georgia State Prison, ] Plaintiff was incarcerated at Johnson State Prison where he did not have any problems with his pills." (Id. at p. 13.) During Plaintiffs incarceration at Johnson State Prison, his pain medication "was administered to him as directed by the label and [was] ... 97 percent effective" to alleviate his pain. (Id.) However, upon his arrival at Georgia State Prison, Plaintiff received his medication in the form of a white powder. (Id.) Plaintiff avers that Defendant Sabine "adopted his own policy . . . concerning the medication . . . [which required] Defendant Smith [to] produce a white powder in a small plastic bag" instead of the pills Plaintiff received at Johnson State Prison. (Id.) Plaintiff maintains that Defendants expect "prisoners to accept... the white powder in the small plastic bag that nobody know[s] where it come from [sic]." (Id.) On November 30, 2015, after refusing to take pain medication in powder form, Plaintiff requested that Defendant Sabine provide him pain pills. (Id.) However, Plaintiff received no response to his request or any pain pills. (Id.) Although Defendant Smith continued to offer Plaintiff pain medication in powder form, "Plaintiff refused to take [the] white powder." (Id. at p. 15.) As a result, Plaintiffs health condition has deteriorated. (Id.)

         Plaintiff further avers that when he requested to be sent to Augusta State Medical Prison for treatment, Defendant Tolbert became angry and changed Plaintiffs Zantac prescription to Prilosec. (Id. at p. 16.) In addition to Prilosec, Defendant Tolbert also prescribed Plaintiff a 14-day regimen of Tylenol 3 to manage his pain. (Id.) However, at the conclusion of that 14-day period, Defendant Tolbert and Defendant Smith discontinued Plaintiffs Tylenol 3 prescription. (Id. at p. 17.) Plaintiff alleges he now suffers from exacerbated pain, incapacitation, depression, loss of sensation and paralysis, and higher blood pressure. (Id.)

         On February 14, 2017, Magistrate Judge R. Stan Baker recommended that the Court dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint, due to Plaintiffs accumulation of three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (Doc. 4, p. 8.) Additionally, the Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiffs Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis after concluding that Plaintiff did not sufficiently allege he faced imminent danger of serious physical harm. (Id.) Plaintiff filed Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation on March 2, 2017. (Doc. 5.) Plaintiff filed an identical pleading labeled "Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint" on the same date, (doc. 6), as well as a pleading labeled "Amended Complaint" on March 15, 2017, in which he reiterates his Objections to the Report and Recommendation.

         DISCUSSION

         In his Objections, Plaintiff contends the Magistrate Judge failed to liberally construe his Complaint, as required by Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), and therefore, improperly concluded that Plaintiff does not face an imminent danger of harm. Plaintiff presents these same arguments in his Motion to Amend and his "Amended Complaint", (docs. 6, 7).

         As the Magistrate Judge discussed in the Report and Recommendation, a prisoner attempting to proceed in forma pauperis in a civil action in federal court must comply with the mandates of the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"). Pertinently, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) of the PLRA provides:

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.

         The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has explained that "[t]his provision of the PLRA, 'commonly known as the 'three strikes' provision, ' requires frequent filer prisoners to prepay the entire filing fee before federal courts may consider their lawsuits and appeals." Rivera v. Allin, 144 F.3d 719, 723 (11th Cir. 1998) (quoting Lyon v. Krol, 127 F.3d 763, 764 (8th Cir. 1997)).[2] Dismissals for providing false filing-history information and failing to comply with court orders both fall under the category of "abuse of the judicial process", which the Eleventh Circuit has held to be a "strike-worthy" form of dismissal under Section 1915(g). See id. at 731 (dismissal for failure to disclose prior litigation is "precisely the type of strike that Congress envisioned when drafting section 1915(g)"); Malautea v. Suzuki Motor Co., 987 F.2d 1536, 1544 (11th Cir. 1993) (characterizing failure to comply with court orders as "abuse of the judicial process").

         The Eleventh Circuit has held that a prisoner barred from proceeding in forma pauperis due to the "three strikes" provision in § 1915(g) must pay the entire filing fee[3] when he initiates suit. Vanderberg v. Donaldson, 259 F.3d 1321, 1324 (11th Cir. 2001). Therefore, the proper procedure for a district court faced with a prisoner who seeks in forma pauperis status but is barred by the "three strikes" provision is to dismiss the complaint without prejudice. Dupree v. Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234, 1236 (11th Cir. 2002).

         A review of Plaintiff s history of filings reveals that he has brought more than three civil actions or appeals which count as strikes under Section 1915(g): 1) Baez v. Gearinger, No. 5:00-cv-00023 (M.D. Ga. Mar. 21, 2000), ECF No. 4 (dismissing complaint as frivolous); 2) Baez v. Doe, No. 5:99-cv-00353 (M.D. Ga. Nov. 4, 1999), ECF No. 5 (dismissing action as frivolous); 3) Baez v. Miller, et al. l:06-cv-01738 (N.D.Ga. Sept. 20, 2007), ECF No. 36 (dismissing action as frivolous for failure to state a claim); 4) Baez v. Lee, l:90-cv-01942 (N.D.Ga. Nov. 20, 1990), ECF No. 3 (dismissing complaint as frivolous); 5) Baez v. Lee, l:94-cv-01347 (N.D.Ga. Dec. 6, 1995), ECF No. 6 (same); 6) Baez v. Forrester, l:98-cv-02126 (N.D.Ga. Nov. 6, 1998), ECF No. 8 (dismissal for failure to follow court order);[4] and 7) Baez v. Jackson, et. al, 6:16-cv-5 (S.D. Ga. Apr. 18, 2016), ECF No. 8 (dismissal for failure to disclose litigation history and failure to allege imminent danger of serious physical injury concerning manner in which plaintiff is given pain medication).

         Because Plaintiff has filed at least three previously dismissed cases or appeals which qualify as strikes under Section 1915(g), Plaintiff may not proceed in forma pauperis in this action unless he can demonstrate that he meets the "imminent danger of serious physical injury" exception to Section 1915(g). "In order to come within the imminent danger exception, the Eleventh Circuit requires 'specific allegations of present imminent danger that may result in serious physical harm.,, ,Odum v. Bryan Ctv. Judicial Circuit, No. CV407-181, 2008 WL 766661, at *1 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 20, 2008) (quoting Skillern v. Jackson, No. CV606-49, 2006 WL 1687752, at *2 (S.D. Ga. June 14, 2006) (citing Brown v. Johnson, 387 F.3d 1344, 1349 (1 lth Cir. 2004))). General and conclusory allegations not grounded in specific facts indicating that injury is imminent cannot invoke the Section 1915(g) exception. Margiotti v. Nichols, No. CV306-113, 2006 WL 1174350, at *2 (N.D. Fla. May 2, 2006). Moreover, a harm that has already occurred or danger that has now passed cannot justify skirting the three strike bar. Medberry v. Butler,185 F.3d 1189, 1193 (11th Cir. 1999) ("prisoner's allegation that he faced imminent danger sometime in the past is an insufficient basis to allow him to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to the imminent danger exception to the statute."); see also Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie,239 F.3d 307, 315 (3d Cir. 2001) ("By using the term 'imminent, ' Congress indicated that it wanted to include a safety valve for the 'three strikes' rule to prevent impending harms, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.