United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Macon Division
DAVID DWAYNE CASSADY, also known as DANA MARIE CASSADY, Plaintiff,
Commissioner GREGORY DOZIER, et al., Defendants.
RECOMMENDATION OF DISMISSAL
Charles H. Weigle United States Magistrate Judge
Dana Marie Cassady, a prisoner at the Baldwin State Prison in
Hardwick, Georgia, has filed a pro se civil rights
complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Compl., ECF No.
1. She also seeks leave to proceed without prepayment of the
filing fee or security therefor pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a). Mot. for Leave to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis, ECF No. 2. For the reasons discussed below, it
is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's
application to proceed in forma pauperis be
DENIED and the complaint be
DISMISSED without prejudice to
Plaintiff's right to refile a new action and pay the
district courts may authorize the commencement of a civil
action without prepayment of the normally-required fees if
the plaintiff shows that she is indigent and financially
unable to pay the filing fee. See 28 U.S.C.
§1915(b). A prisoner seeking to proceed IFP under this
section must provide the district court with both (1) an
affidavit in support of her claim of indigence and (2) a
certified copy of her prison “trust fund account
statement (or institutional equivalent) for the 6-month
period immediately preceding the filing of the
law prohibits a prisoner from bringing a civil action in
federal court in forma pauperis, however,
if [she] 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 she 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, her ability to
proceed in forma pauperis in federal court is
greatly limited: leave may not be granted unless the prisoner
alleges 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 multiple lawsuits
in federal court and that at least three of her complaints or
appeals have been dismissed on a ground that constitutes a
strike. See, e.g., Order Dismissing Compl.,
Cassady v. Hamrick, Case No. 4:07-cv-00188-CDL (M.D.
Ga. Oct. 16, 2017), ECF No. 17 (dismissing complaint for
failure to state a claim); Order Dismissing Compl.,
Cassady v. Williams, Case No. 4:08-cv-177-BAE-GRS
(S.D. Ga. Nov. 24, 2008), ECF No. 11 (dismissing case for
failure to exhaust administrative remedies); Order Dismissing
Compl., Cassady v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Case
No. 3:13-cv-92-DHB-BKE (S.D. Ga. Oct. 23, 2014), ECF No. 27
(dismissing complaint for failure to state a claim); Order
Dismissing Compl., Cassady v. Dozier, Case No.
3:17-cv-35-DHB-BKE (S.D. Ga. Nov. 27, 2017), ECF No. 11
(dismissing case for abuse of judicial process). Because of
this, Plaintiff may not proceed in forma pauperis
unless she qualifies for the “imminent danger”
exception in § 1915(g). Medberry, 185 F.3d at
satisfy the “imminent danger” requirement, a
prisoner must allege the existence of a present and imminent
danger of serious physical injury. See Id. at 1193.
General allegations that are not grounded in specific facts
which indicate that serious physical injury is imminent are
not sufficient to invoke the exception to § 1915(g).
See Brown v. Johnson, 387 F.3d 1344, 1450 (11th Cir.
2004). Here, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants have denied
her sex reassignment surgery. Plaintiff's complaint does
not, however, set forth any specific facts identifying an
imminent danger of serious physical injury as a result of the
denial of surgery.
particular, Plaintiff alleges that she currently must take
hormones, which would no longer be needed if she were to
undergo sex reassignment surgery. Compl. 24, ECF No. 1.
Moreover, Plaintiff asserts that use of such hormones can
potentially lead to health risks, particularly for
individuals like Plaintiff, who already have certain health
conditions. Id. Plaintiff's complaint states,
however, that her conditions are currently under control, and
she does not allege that there is any imminent risk of harm
from her use of the hormones, only that such harm is
possible. Id. Thus, these allegations do not satisfy
the imminent danger exception. See Brown, 387 F.3d
Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that she is entitled to
proceed in forma pauperis despite her three strikes,
it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's
motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis be DENIED and her complaint be
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Plaintiff may serve and file
written objections to this recommendation with United States
District Court Judge Marc T. Treadwell within
FOURTEEN (14) DAYS of his being served with
a copy of this Order. Plaintiff may seek an extension of time
in which to file written objections or amendments, provided a
request for an extension is filed prior to the deadline for
filing written objections. Failure to object in accordance
with the provisions of § 636(b)(1) waives the right to
challenge on appeal the district judge's order based on
factual and legal conclusions to which no objection was
timely made. See 11th Cir. R. 3-1.