Hill v. Hobbs et al
ORDER: Mr. Hill is barred from proceeding IFP under the Prison Litigation Reform Act's "three strikes" provision unless he sufficiently alleges that he is in imminent danger of serious physical harm. He must include in his amended comp laint facts establishing that he faces imminent danger or serious harm. Mr. Hill has fourteen days to file his second amended complaint. 17 Motion is denied as to recusal and denied as premature to preserve evidence. The balance of preliminary relief Mr. Hill seeks is denied because the motion includes no facts showing that Mr. Hill will face irreparable harm absent immediate Court intervention. Signed by Magistrate Judge Beth Deere on 4/3/2015. (jak)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
CASE NO. 5:15-CV-00064 DPM/BD
ARTIS RAY HOBBS, et al.
Jessie Hill, an Arkansas Department of Correction (“ADC”) inmate, filed this
lawsuit pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Although the Court allowed Mr. Hill to proceed
in forma pauperis (“IFP”), the Court ordered him to amend his complaint based on the
number of claims raised and the number of Defendants named.
Based on a further review of Mr. Hill’s litigation history, the Court has determined
that Mr. Hill has filed at least three lawsuits that were dismissed as frivolous in the
Eastern District of Arkansas. Hill v. Williams, et al.,4:11-cv-74 (dismissed as frivolous)
(E.D. Ark. April 23, 2012); Hill v. Anthony, et al.,4:11-cv-136 (dismissed as frivolous)
(E.D. Ark. Aug. 1, 2011); and Hill v. Hobbs, et al.,5:12-cv-313 (dismissed as frivolous)
(E.D. Ark. Nov. 5, 2012). Each of these dismissals counts as a strike. Therefore, Mr. Hill
is barred from proceeding IFP under the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s “three strikes”
provision unless he sufficiently alleges that he is in imminent danger of serious physical
Accordingly, if Mr. Hill seeks to continue to proceed IFP in this case, he must
include in his second amended complaint facts establishing that he faces imminent danger
of serious harm. Again, Mr. Hill is cautioned that he must only include one constitutional
claim in his second amended complaint. Mr. Hill has fourteen additional days to file his
second amended complaint. His failure to comply with this Order will result in the
dismissal of his claims, without prejudice.
Mr. Hill has also filed a motion for recusal and for injunctive relief. (#17) Mr.
Hill has not provided a sufficient basis to grant his request that this Court recuse from the
lawsuit. For that reason the motion to recuse is DENIED.
Mr. Hill also seeks a preliminary relief in his motion. (#17) Among the
preliminary relief he seeks, Mr. Hill asks the Court to order the Defendants to preserve
evidence related to his claims – and specifically video and audio tapes. The Defendants
have not been served yet, because Mr. Hill has not yet filed an amended complaint that is
limited to one constitutional claim. Once the filing fee issue is resolved and Mr. Hill files
an amended complaint that complies with court orders, the Court will determine whether
the amended complaint states a federal claim for relief. If so, the Court will order that the
Defendants be served with a copy of the complaint. At that time, the Court will issue an
order directing Defendants to retain all video and audio tapes relevant to Mr. Hill’s
claims. But at this time, Mr. Hill’s motion to preserve evidence is DENIED, as
The balance of the preliminary relief Mr. Hill seeks is DENIED because the
motion includes no facts showing that Mr. Hill will face irreparable harm absent
immediate Court intervention.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 3rd day of April, 2015.
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?