Murphy v. Bledso et al
ORDER that Plaintiff must submit the statutory filing fee of $400 to the Clerk, noting the case style number within 14 days of the date of this order if she wishes to proceed with this action. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe on 9/28/2015. (lej)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
LISA R. MURPHY
ADC # 760343
BLEDSO, Director of Nursing,
McPherson Unit, et al.
Plaintiff filed this action without paying the statutory filing fee or filing an Application to
Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Affidavit (“Application”). After review of her litigative
history, the Court will not direct that an Application be sent to Plaintiff.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) of 1996 enacted what is commonly referred to
as the “three strikes” provision, codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Martin v. Shelton, 319 F.3d 1048,
1050 (8th Cir. 2003). In relevant part it provides that:
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 Court has determined that Plaintiff is a “three-striker” within the meaning
of the PLRA.1
She may still proceed in forma pauperis, however, if she is under imminent danger of serious
physical injury. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has explained that this
Plaintiff has had three cases dismissed for failure to state a claim. See Murphy v. Faust,
1:14cv00127-JM; Murphy v. Kelly, 1:915cv00044-JM; Murphy v. Hot Springs County,
exception applies only if a threat of imminent danger exists at the time of the filing of the complaint.
See Martin v. Shelton, 319 F.3d 1048, 1050 (8th Cir. 2003); Ashley v. Dilworth, 147 F.3d 715, 717
(8th Cir. 1998). The imminent danger exception focuses on the risk that the conduct complained of
threatens continuing or future injury, not on whether the inmate deserves a remedy for past
misconduct. Martin, 319 F.3d at 1050.
Here, Plaintiff named ten defendants, but has not explained her allegations against any of
them. (Doc. No. 1.) Instead, she directs the reader’s attention to an attached document that does not
exist. (Id. at 5.) Absent clear indication that Plaintiff is in imminent danger of serious physical
harm, I conclude that she is not eligible to proceed in forma pauperis.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT Plaintiff must submit the statutory filing fee of
$400.00 to the Clerk, noting the above case style and number within fourteen (14) days of the date
of this Order if she wishes to proceed with this action. Failure to do so will result in a
recommendation that this action be dismissed without prejudice.
So Ordered this 28th day of September, 2015.
JOE J. VOLPE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 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?