Williams v. Norvell et al
ORDER DISMISSING CASE without prejudice. If plaintiff wishes to proceed, he must, within 30 days of the date of this Order, pay the statutory filing fee of $ 350 and a motion to reopen.. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 8/15/11. (kpr) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/15/2011: ) # 1 Main Document - Correct) (thd).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
THELMA WILLIAMS, JR.
STEPHAINE NORVELL, Gyst House Clerk;
KENDRA D. ARMSTRONG, Parole Officer;
MCMILLER, Parole Officer;
LARRY D. MAY, ADC Chief Deputy Director;
RUBEN L. JOHNSON, Gysty House Office
Worker; KIMBERLY BENSON, Lighthouse
Office Worker; CURTIS MEINZER, Varner
Unit Warden; JIMMY BANKS, Varner Unit
Warden; SMITH, Varner Unit Treatment; and
RAY HOBBS, ADC Director
Thelma Williams, Jr., a prisoner in the Varner Super Max Unit of the
Arkansas Department of Correction, filed a pro se § 1983 Complaint. He has
not paid the $350 filing fee, however, or filed an Application to Proceed In
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 on motion, if
it determined 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.A.
§ 1915(g) (West 2006). The Eighth Circuit has upheld the constitutionality of
the three-strikes provision. Higgins v. Carpenter, 258 F.3d 797, 801 (8th
The Court's records demonstrate that Williams has previously filed at
least three cases that were dismissed for failing to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted. Williams v. Gibson, 5:07-cv-178-WRW (dismissed on 13
August 2007, and dismissal affirmed on appeal on 13 February 2008); Williams
v. Bennett; 5:07-cv-179-JMM (dismissed on 17 August 2007, and dismissal
affirmed on appeal on 13 February 2008); Williams v. Smallwood; 5:07-cv-181
JMM (dismissed on 13 September 2007, and dismissal affirmed on appeal on
8 December 2008). Williams has accumulated three strikes, as defined by §
1915(g), before filing this action on 2 August 2011. 1
Additionally, Williams has previously had at least thirteen cases
dismissed pursuant to the three-strikes rule. See Williams v. Edward, 2:08-cv
Even though Williams is a three striker, he may be allowed to proceed
in forma pauperis if he falls under the "imminent danger" exception to the
three strikes rule. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). In Ashley v. Dilworth, 147F.3d 715, 717
(8th Cir. 1998) (per curiam), the Eighth Circuit explained that the exception
applies only if the prisoner alleges that he is in imminent danger" at the time
offiling" and that" [a]llegations that the prisoner has faced imminent danger
in the past are insufficient." (Emphasis original.) The Eighth Circuit also has
been reluctant to apply the imminent-danger exception unless the alleged
ongoing danger exposes the prisoner to a risk of serious physical injury.
Compare Ashley, 147 F.3d at 717 (applying the imminent-danger exception
when a prisoner alleged that prison officials continued to place him near his
enemies despite two prior stabbings), with Martin v. Shelton, 319 F.3d 1048,
1050 (8th Cir. 2003) (refusing to apply the imminent-danger exception when
188-JLH; Williams v. Sims, 2:08-cv-196-WRW; Williams v. Cathell; 4:09-cv-39
JMM; Williams v. Ferricher, 5:09-cv-5-JMM; Williams v. Manus, 5:09-cv-144
SWW; Williams v. Mears, 4:10-cv-140-JLH; Williams v. Johnson, 4:10-cv-141
SWW; Williams v. Yount, 4:10-cv-142-SWW; Williams v. Crouch,4:10-cv-143
JMM; Williams v. Yount, 4:10-cv-1759-JLH; Williams v. Hicks, 5:10-cv-125-JLH;
Williams v. Smith, 5:10-cv-228-DPM; Williams v. Smith; 5:10-cv-274-SWW.
a plaintiff alleged that prison officials made him work outside in extreme
weather conditions that did not result in any serious physical injuries).
The allegations in Williams's complaint do not establish that he is in
imminent danger of serious physical injury. He alleges only that Defendants
are interfering with or wrongfully denying his request to be released on
parole. These allegations do not satisfy the requirements of 28 U.S.C.A. §
Williams's case is therefore dismissed without prejudice. 28 U.S.C.A.
§ 1915(g) (West 2006). If Williams wishes to proceed with this case, he must,
within thirty days of the entry of this Order: (1) pay the statutory filing fee of
$350 in full, noting the case style and number; and (2) file a motion to reopen.
Williams's motion for copies, Document No.3, is denied as moot. An in forma
pauperis appeal from this Order and the accompanying Judgment would not
be taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(a)(3) (West 2006).
D.P. Marshall Jr.
United States District Judge
J5 Avovsf ~o U
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?