HARRIS et al v. BUSH et al

Filing 3

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Petition for Miscellaneous Relief filed by JOHN/JANE DOE,, SAMUEL ELIAJAH HARRIS, : It is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's petition, doc.1 be DISMISSED without prejudice because Plaintiff is barred by 28 U.S.C. 1916 (g) from initiating a civil rights case in federal court without full payment of the filing fee at the time he submits the complaint. Signed by Judge WILLIAM C SHERRILL JR on 04/05/06. Internal deadline for referral to district judge if objections are not filed earlier: 5/4/2006(dlt, Tallahassee)

Download PDF
HARRIS et al v. BUSH et al Doc. 3 Case 4:06-cv-00148-RH-WCS Document 3 Filed 04/06/2006 Page 1 of 3 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION SAMUEL E. HARRIS, Plaintiff, vs. JEB BUSH, et al., Defendants. / REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff, an inmate currently incarcerated in the custody of the Florida Department of Corrections, has submitted a pro se petition for injunction. Doc. 1. Plaintiff has not submitted the filing fee for this case. Plaintiff also has not submitted an in forma pauperis motion because Plaintiff has had three or more prisoner actions dismissed on the grounds that they were either frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim. Accordingly, Plaintiff is not entitled to in forma pauperis status in the federal courts. 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). In January, Plaintiff had case 4:05cv422-MP/AK dismissed because Plaintiff was not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis and did not pay the required filing fee. Docs. Case No. 4:06cv148-RH/WCS Dockets.Justia.com Case 4:06-cv-00148-RH-WCS Document 3 Filed 04/06/2006 Page 2 of 3 Page 2 of 3 3, 5 of that case. The Order adopting the report and recommendation, doc. 3, was entered on January 11, 2006, doc. 5, and, obviously Plaintiff is well aware that he is not entitled to proceed without full prepayment of the court's $250.00 filing fee. Furthermore, in February of 2006, Plaintiff attempted to file numerous new cases in this Court, all of which were dismissed in March of 2006 because Plaintiff is not entitled to bring cases without full prepayment of the filing fee. See cases 4:06cv65, 4:06cv73, 4:06cv74, 4:06cv75, 4:06cv92, 4:06cv93, and 4:06cv94. Several more report and recommendations are pending in these cases: 4:06cv76, 4:06cv77, and 4:06cv78. The allegations in this petition have been reviewed, and they fail to demonstrate that Plaintiff is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. Plaintiff's allegations do not bring him within the imminent danger exception to 1915(g). Accordingly, because Plaintiff has previously received a "strike" in cases 1:04cv02-MP/AK, 1:03cv169-MP/AK, and 1:04cv414-MP/AK, this case must be dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff refiling the case and simultaneously submitting the full filing fee. See Dupree v. Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234 (11th Cir. 2002). In light of the foregoing, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's petition, doc. 1, be DISMISSED without prejudice because Plaintiff is barred by 28 U.S.C. 1916(g) from initiating a civil rights case in federal court without full payment of the filing fee at the time he submits the complaint. IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on April 6, 2006. s/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Case No. 4:06cv148-RH/WCS Case 4:06-cv-00148-RH-WCS Document 3 Filed 04/06/2006 Page 3 of 3 Page 3 of 3 NOTICE TO THE PARTIES A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations within 15 days after being served with a copy of this report and recommendation. A party may respond to another party's objections within 10 days after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to file specific objections limits the scope of review of proposed factual findings and recommendations. Case No. 4:06cv148-RH/WCS

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?