United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Macon Division
T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
se Plaintiff Willie Frank Wright, Jr, currently confined at
Autry State Prison, submitted a pro se complaint
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff raises two claims for
relief in his complaint. He alleges (1) that Judge Brenda
Trammel violated Plaintiff's rights during his divorce
proceedings, and (2) that his rights were violated by the
prosecutor, presiding judge, and clerk of Baldwin County
during an unidentified post-conviction proceeding. Plaintiff
states that the latter claim “will not invalidate his
conviction and is being filed so that he may get a full
hearing.” Compl. 7, ECF No.1. Plaintiff has not paid
the Court's filing fee, therefore, it is presumed that he
wishes to proceed in this action in forma pauperis.
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's may not proceed
in forma pauperis 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 numerous federal
lawsuits and appeals and at least three were dismissed as
frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim.
See Wright v. Massey, 5:11-cv-491-MTT (M.D. Ga.
2011) (dismissed for failure to state a claim); Wright v.
Hicks, 5:10-cv-246-MTT (M.D. Ga., 2010) (dismissed as
frivolous); Wright v. Waller, 5:10-cv-254 (MTT)
(M.D. Ga. Aug. 23, 2011) (dismissed for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies); Wright v. Commissioner, Georgia
Dept. et al., No. 14-10572 (11th Cir. 2014) (“This
Court has determined that the “three strikes”
provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 is
application to [Plainitff].”)
of this, Plaintiff may not proceed in forma pauperis
unless he can show that he qualifies for the “imminent
danger” exception in § 1915(g). Rivera v.
Allen, 144 F.3d 719, 731 (11th Cir. 1998) (holding that
dismissal for providing false filing history is a strike
under § 1915(g)), abrogated on other grounds by
Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 216-17 (2007) To satisfy
this provision a prisoner must allege specific facts that
describe “an ongoing serious physical injury, or of a
pattern of misconduct evidencing the likelihood of imminent
serious physical injury.” Sutton v. Dist.
Attorney's Office, 334 F. App'x 278, 279 (11th
Cir. 2009) (quoting Brown v. Johnson, 387 F.3d 1344,
1350 (11th Cir. 2004)). 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, 387 F.3d at 1347;
Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263
(11th Cir. 1998). Plaintiff does not allege that he is under
imminent danger of serious physical injury, and neither the
alleged procedural defects in Plaintiff's divorce
proceedings nor the defects alleged in the unidentified
post-conviction proceedings arguably implicate a risk of
serious injury. Accordingly, Plaintiff does not qualify under
the imminent danger exception.
Plaintiff has three prior dismissals that properly qualify as
strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), he may not proceed
in forma pauperis in this action. 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).