United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Macon Division
ASHLEY ROYAL, SENIOR JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.
se Plaintiff Johnnie Garrett, currently incarcerated in
Pinckneyville Correctional Center, located in Pinckneyville,
Illinois, submitted a pro se handwritten document
which the Clerk docketed as a civil rights complaint under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. The exact nature of Plaintiff's
claims are unclear, but Plaintiff has attached to his
complaint what appears to be a sanction order against
Plaintiff, a printout of a cable television programming
schedule, and various magazine articles with no apparent
relationship to each other. It appears that Plaintiff may be
requesting some unknown relief related to “China Anne
McClain, ” but also brings this claim on Ms.
McClain's behalf. Plaintiff failed to pay the court's
filing fee, and presumably seeks to proceed in this action
without the prepayment of that fee.
Court has now reviewed the complaint and all other
submissions and finds that Plaintiff may not proceed in this
action without first prepaying the full $400.00 filing fee,
as at least three of his prior federal lawsuits were
dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a
claim and count as “strikes” under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g). Consequently, Plaintiff cannot proceed in
this action in forma puaperis and this action is
DISMISSED without prejudice.
law prohibits a prisoner from bringing a civil action in
federal court in forma pauperis
if [he] 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.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). This is known as the “three
strikes provision.” Under § 1915(g), a prisoner
incurs a “strike” any time he has a federal
lawsuit or appeal dismissed on the grounds that it is
frivolous or malicious or fails to state a claim.
Medberry v. Butler, 185 F.3d 1189, 1193 (11th Cir.
1999). If a prisoner incurs three strikes, his ability to
proceed in forma pauperis in federal court is
greatly limited and leave may not be granted unless the
prisoner shows an “imminent danger of serious physical
review of court records on the Federal Judiciary's Public
Access to Court Electronic Records (“PACER”)
database reveals that Plaintiff has filed dozens of federal
lawsuits and least three complaints were dismissed as
frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim.
See Garrett v. State of Illinois, 3:13-cv-01298, ECF
No. 5, (S.D. Ill. December 30, 2013) (dismissed as
frivolous); Garrett v. Attorney General,
3:13-cv-01196, ECF No. 7 (S.D. Ill. December 17, 2013)
(dismissed as frivolous and malicious and assessed as a
strike); Garrett v. Attorney General, 3:13-cv-01087,
ECF No. 9 (S. D. Ill., January 21, 2014) (dismissed for
failure to state a claim and assessed as a strike);
Garrett v. State of Illinois Attorney General,
2:13-cv-04971, ECF No. 2 (C.D. Ca. July 11, 2013) (dismissed
as frivolous assessed as a strike).
of this, Plaintiff may not proceed in forma pauperis
unless he can show that he qualifies for the “imminent
danger” exception in § 1915(g). Medberry,
185 F.3d at 1193. When reviewing a pro se prisoner's
complaint for this purpose, the district court must accept
all factual allegations in the complaint as true and view all
allegations of imminent danger in Plaintiff's favor.
Brown v. Johnson, 387 F.3d 1344, 1347 (11th Cir.
2004); Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262,
1263 (11th Cir. 1998). Plaintiff does not allege imminent
danger, and an independent review of his complaint
establishes that his allegations do not implicate physical
injury, much less one that is both imminent and serious.
Plaintiff has three prior dismissals that properly qualify as
strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), he may not proceed
in forma pauperis. Once a plaintiff is denied in
forma pauperis status, he cannot simply pay the filing
fee and proceed with his complaint. Dupree v.
Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234, 1236 (11th Cir. 2002).
Accordingly, Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED
without prejudice. Id. (the proper
procedure is to dismiss the complaint without prejudice).