Caradine/Assabur v. Hudgens
ORDER dismissing pltf's complaint without prejudice; if pltf wishes to continue this case, he must submit, within 30 days of the entry of this Order, the $350 filing fee, along with a motion to reopen this case; judgment will be entered accordingly. Signed by Chief Judge J. Leon Holmes on 8/10/11. (vjt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
WILLIAM F. CARADINE/ASSABUR
NO. 5:11CV00204 JLH/HDY
HUDGENS, Maintenance Supervisor,
Varner Unit, Arkansas Dept. of Correction
Plaintiff William F. Caradine/Assabur, currently incarcerated at the Varner Super Max Unit
of the Arkansas Department of Correction, filed a pro se complaint (docket entry #1), pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983, on August 8, 2011. Plaintiff did not pay the $350.00 filing fee, or file an
application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Because the fee was not paid and Plaintiff is not
entitled to in forma pauperis status, his complaint must be dismissed.
Under the three-strikes provision of the Prison Ligation Reform Act (“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 Cir. 2001).
Records in the office of the Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas reveal that
Plaintiff has had at least three prior civil actions dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted.1 Plaintiff’s three strikes have been previously
recognized.2 The Court also finds, based on the allegations of Plaintiff’s present complaint, that he
is not in imminent danger of serious physical injury. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks compensation for
his discomfort and illness due to poorly controlled air temperature in January of 2011. The facts
alleged do not describe imminent danger of serious physical injury.3
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 faith.
DATED this 10th day of August, 2011.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
See Caradine/Assabur v. University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences et al., 4:10CV1960,
docket entry #8 (E.D. Ark. January 4, 2011); Caradine/Assabur v. Social Security Admin.,
4:10CV1961, docket entry #10 (E.D. Ark. January 11, 2011); Caradine/Assabur v. Little Rock Police
Dep’t, 4:10CV1962, docket entry #11 (E.D. Ark. January 12, 2011).
See Caradine/Assabur v. Reynolds, 5:11CV33, docket entry #4 (E.D. Ark. March 16, 2011).
Attachments to Plaintiff’s complaint appear to reference unrelated medical concerns,
including allegations made in connection with an incident in June of 2011. However, Defendant
Hudgens, a maintenance supervisor, had no role in the medical care.
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?