Bausley v. Bulution et al
ORDER ADOPTING 10 Report and Recommendations; further denying 9 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. See Order for specifics. Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on June 6, 2017. (hnc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION
CHARLES LAVELLE BAUSLEY
Case No. 6:17-cv-6027
E.W. BULUTION and
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation filed May 24, 2017, by the
Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.
(ECF No. 10). Judge Bryant recommends that Plaintiff Charles Lavelle Bausley’s Motion for
Leave to Appeal In Forma Pauperis 1 (ECF No. 9) be denied because Plaintiff has accumulated
at least three Prisoner Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) strikes. Plaintiff timely filed objections
to the Report and Recommendation.
(ECF No. 11).
The Court finds the matter ripe for
Under the PLRA’s “three strikes” rule, a prisoner is allowed three in forma pauperis
actions or appeals that are dismissed on grounds of frivolity, maliciousness, or failure to state a
claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). After the prisoner accumulates three PLRA “strikes,” in forma
pauperis status is unavailable to the prisoner unless the prisoner alleges that he is under
imminent danger of serious physical injury. Id. Without in forma paupis status, the prisoner
must pay the filing fee up front for subsequent actions and appeals. Id.; Orr v. Clements, 688
On May 8, 2017, the Court entered an order dismissing Plaintiff’s case without prejudice because Plaintiff failed to
exhaust his administrative remedies before filing suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 6).
F.3d 463, 466 (8th Cir. 2012) (holding that an appealing prisoner who has three previous PLRA
strikes is ineligible for in forma pauperis status and must pay the appellate filing fee up front).
In the instant Report and Recommendation, Judge Bryant finds that Plaintiff has had at
least four actions dismissed on three-strikes-applicable grounds, 2 and that Plaintiff does not
allege in this case that he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. Thus, Judge
Bryant recommends that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis be denied.
Plaintiff’s objections are not responsive to the Report and Recommendation, and offer no error
of fact or law from which the Court finds it necessary to depart from the Report and
Therefore, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in toto.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Appeal In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 9) is hereby DENIED.
Plaintiff must pay the entire appellate filing fee up front in order to proceed with his appeal.
Plaintiff also has the option to renew his motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis with the
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a).
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 6th day of June, 2017.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
United States District Judge
The Court agrees with Judge Bryant that Plaintiff has incurred at least three PLRA strikes in this district. See, e.g.,
Bausley v. Bender, No. 2:04-cv-2004-JLH (W.D. Ark. May 25, 2004), ECF No. 11 (dismissing the case as frivolous
and for failure to state a claim); Bausley v. Dugan, No. 2:03-cv-2288-JLH (W.D. Ark. May 11, 2004), ECF No. 12
(same); Bausley v. Bass, No. 2:03-cv-2239-RTD (W.D. Ark. May 10, 2004), ECF No. 10 (same); Bausley v. Hicks,
No. 2:03-cv-2197-RTD (W.D. Ark. Nov. 14, 2003), ECF No. 8 (same). Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiff is a
“three striker” pursuant to the PLRA, and is generally ineligible for in forma pauperis status.
Plaintiff’s objections state that he has already sent in an appeal letter and does not know what else to do to initiate
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?