Williams v. Meinzer et al
ORDER DISMISSING CASE without prejudice pursuant to the three-strike rule. If plaintiff wishes to continue this case, he must submit the statutory filing fee of $350 within 30 days of the date of this order, along with a motion to reopen the case. The Court certifies that an ifp appeal would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge James M. Moody on 7/11/11. (kpr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
THELMA WILLIAMS, JR
NO: 5:11CV00168 JMM/HDY
CURTIS MEINZER et al.
Plaintiff, currently incarcerated at the Arkansas Department of Correction’s Varner Super
Max Unit, filed a pro se complaint (docket entry #1), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, on June 30,
2011. Plaintiff did not pay the $350.00 filing fee, or file an application for leave to proceed in forma
Because Plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed, without prejudice, pursuant to the threestrikes provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), Plaintiff is not entitled to proceed
in forma pauperis.
Under the three-strikes provision of the PLRA, the Court must dismiss a prisoner's in forma
pauperis action at any time, sua sponte or upon a motion of a party, if it determines that 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 Eighth Circuit has explicitly
upheld the constitutionality of the three-strikes provision. Higgins v. Carpenter, 258 F.3d 797 (8th
Records in the office of the Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas reveal that
Plaintiff has had more than three prior civil actions dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted.1 Plaintiff’s three-strike status has been previously recognized.2
The Court additionally finds, based on the allegations contained in Plaintiff’s present
complaint, that he is not in imminent danger of serious physical injury. Specifically, Plaintiff is
claiming that money has been inappropriately taken from his commissary account. Such allegations
do not describe imminent danger of serious physical injury.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Should Plaintiff wish
to continue this case, he must submit the statutory filing fee of $350.00 to the Clerk of the Court,
noting the above case style number, within thirty (30) days of the entry date of this order, along with
a motion to reopen the case. Upon receipt of the motion and full payment, this case will be
The Court additionally certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma
pauperis appeal from this order or any judgment entered hereunder, would not be taken in good
DATED this 11th day of July, 2011.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
See Williams v. Gibson et al., ED/AR No. 5:07CV00178 (filed July 13, 2007); Williams v.
Bennett et al., ED/AR No. 5:07CV00179 (filed July 13, 2007); Williams v. Smallwood et al.,
5:07CV00181 (filed July 13, 2007); Williams v. Wright et al., ED/AR No. 4:11CV137 (filed
February 15, 2011)..
See Williams v. Marshall, ED/AR No. 3:30CV11 (filed March 17, 2011).
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?