Broadhead v. Aaron et al

Filing 2

MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Judge William M Acker, Jr on 1/7/16. (SAC )

FILED
2016 Jan-07 PM 03:41
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JAMES BROADHEAD,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
SGT. SAMUEL AARON, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 2:15-cv-02304-WMA-JHE

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff James Broadhead, a prisoner incarcerated at the
Donaldson Correctional Facility, filed this action on the form
normally utilized by prisoners seeking damages and/or injunctive
relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). However, the
plaintiff

failed

to

file

an

application

to

proceed

in

forma

pauperis, or pay the $400 filing and administrative fees. Under
those circumstances, the plaintiff would normally be ordered to
submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full
filing fee within a prescribed time. However, because the plaintiff
is subject to the three-strikes provision of the Prison Litigation
Reform Act (“PLRA”), such an order is not appropriate in this
instance.
The PLRA establishes restrictions on the ability of prisoners
to file civil rights actions in federal court. One provision of
that Act amended the in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915,
to add subsection (g), which provides as follows:
1

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.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has
interpreted this statute to mean that a prisoner who has had three
or more cases dismissed as meritless must pay the full filing fee
at the time he initiates the lawsuit. See Dupree v. Palmer, 284
F.3d 1234 (11th Cir. 2002); Vanderberg v. Donaldson, 259 F.3d 1321,
1324 (11th Cir. 2001). The only exception to this rule is for a
prisoner who is “under imminent danger of serious physical injury.”
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
A review of this court’s records reveals that plaintiff has
filed at least three cases which have been dismissed as meritless,
including:

Broadhead v. O’Brian, Case No. 4:10-cv-00475-JHH-RRA;

Broadhead v. Hopkins, Case No. 4:10-cv-00439-LSC-RRA; and Broadhead
v.

Kirrire,

plaintiff

Case

comes

No.

within

4:10-cv-00053-VEH-RRA.1
§

1915(g),

which

Therefore,

precludes

him

the
from

commencing this action in forma pauperis unless he is “under

1

Suits dismissed as frivolous or malicious pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(d), the predecessor statute to § 1915(e), constitute
“strikes.”
Medberry v. Butler, 185 F.3d 1189, 1192 (11th Cir.
1999).
2

imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
The

undersigned

has

reviewed

the

allegations

made

in

the

plaintiff’s complaint carefully and is satisfied that he has not
alleged facts demonstrating he is “under imminent danger of serious
physical

injury.”

28

U.S.C.A.

§

1915(g).2

Accordingly,

the

plaintiff’s action will be dismissed. A separate order will be
entered.
DONE this 7th day of January, 2016.

_____________________________
WILLIAM M. ACKER, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

The plaintiff alleges he was forced to the ground and kicked
in the testicles.
However, not only does the plaintiff have a
history of asserting fanciful allegations of assault by prison
guards, but the claims in the present case, even if true, do not
demonstrate he is presently under imminent danger of serious
physical injury.
3