Heidelberg v. City of Mobile Police Department et al
ORDER ADOPTING 6 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION as set out. Plf's 4 MOTION to Amend is DENIED. Plf's 9 Objections are OVERRULED. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice as set out. Signed by District Judge Terry F. Moorer on 10/11/18. (copy mailed to Plf on 10/11/18) (tot)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
AARON JEROME HEIDELBERG,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-0271-TM-N
CITY OF MOBILE POLICE DEPT., et
On August 5, 2018, the magistrate judge entered a report and recommendation which
recommends this action be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to the provision of 28 U.S.C. §
1915(g). See Doc. 6. Plaintiff filed objections on September 7, 2018. See Doc. 9. After due and
proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the issue raised, and a de novo
determination of those portions of the Recommendation to which objection is made, the Report
and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) is ADOPTED
with the added language below.
In addition to the analysis articulated by the Magistrate Judge, the Court also notes that
Plaintiff attempted to amend his complaint wherein he makes allegations regarding the danger of
the prison where he is incarcerated. See Doc. 4. Plaintiff further reiterates this point in his
objections to the report and recommendation. See Doc. 9. However, his attempts to show
“imminent danger” to circumvent the “three strikes” provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) fail.
First, as noted by the Magistrate Judge, the allegations fail to demonstrate that Heidelberg
was in imminent danger at the time he filed this cause of action. Medberry v. Butler, 185 F.3d
1189, 1193 (11th Cir. 1999) (inmate must show “imminent danger” at time of filing the complaint
to circumvent application of the “three strikes” provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).); see also Martin
v. Shelton, 319 F.3d 1048, 1050 (8th Cir. 2003); Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307, 315 (3d
Cir. 2001) (“By using the term ‘imminent,’ Congress indicated that it wanted to . . . prevent
impending harms, not those harms that had already occurred.”). Plaintiff attempts to remedy his
original failure in his motion to amend and his objections. However, those will not satisfy the
requirement that the imminent danger be present when the original complaint was filed. Plaintiff
filed his complaint on or about June 8, 2018, but as noted by the Magistrate Judge, the events on
which he bases his claims occurred prior to March 6, 2018. See Doc. 6 at p. 5.
Second, the Court also notes that the allegations of imminent danger relate solely to the
conditions of confinement and not the actual claims for which he seeks relief. Plaintiff asserts
causes of action that challenge the constitutionality of his arrest and subsequent revocation of
parole. This Court agrees with other courts in their determination that an adequate nexus must
exist between the claims made the basis of the complaint and the alleged imminent danger. See,
e.g., Pettus v. Morenthau, 554 F.3d 293, 297 (2d Cir. 2009) (“there must be a nexus between the
imminent danger a three-strikes prisoner alleges to obtain IFP status and the legal claims asserted
in his complaint.”); Alston v. F.B.I., 747 F. Supp.2d 28, 31 (D.D.C. 2010) (“To qualify under [the
imminent danger exception], the prisoner must show that the action is connected to the imminent
danger.”); Frazier v. Reynolds, Civ. Act. No. 2:15-cv-381-MHT, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93884
(M.D. Ala. Jul. 1, 2015) (holding same and citing Pettus and Alston). Even the conditions he
complains about with regard to lack of medical care and being assaulted by another inmate all
occurred prior to his transfer to the Alabama Department of Corrections. See Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 21-24.
Finally, his generalized allegations of living in fear at his current facility discussed in his proposed
amended complaint do not ultimately relate to his claims, but rather relate to his status as a
In these circumstances, the Eleventh Circuit is clear. “[T]he proper procedure is for the
district court to dismiss the complaint without prejudice when it denies the prisoner leave to
proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to the three strikes provision of § 1915(g). The prisoner cannot
simply pay the filing fee after being denied in forma pauperis status. He must pay the filing fee at
the time he initiates the suit.” Dupree v. Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234, 1236 (11th Cir. 2002).
Therefore, based on the reasons stated by the Magistrate Judge and the added discussion
above, the Plaintiff’s motion to amend (Doc. 4) is DENIED, Plaintiff’s objections (Doc. 9) are
OVERRULED, and the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 6) is ADOPTED.
This action is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §
1915(g) because Plaintiff is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis and he did not pay the
requisite filing fee.
DONE and ORDERED this 11th day of October 2018.
/s/ Terry F. Moorer
TERRY F. MOORER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?