CAIN v. WASHINGTON STATE PRISON et al
ORDER DENYING leave to proceed in forma pauperis and DISMISSING 1 Plaintiff's Complaint. Ordered by U.S. District Judge MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 3/10/2015. (tlh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
WASHINGTON STATE PRISON, et al, :
CIVIL NO. 5:15-CV-0058-MTT
Plaintiff KEVIN CAIN, a prisoner confined at Washington State Prison in
Davisboro, Georgia, has filed a pleading in this Court which is construed to be a pro se
civil rights complaint seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Because Plaintiff failed to
pay the required fee upon filing, the Court presumes that he also wishes to proceed in this
action in forma pauperis.
Federal law, however, prohibits a prisoner from bringing a civil action in federal
court in forma pauperis
if [he] 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). This is known as the “three strikes provision.” Under § 1915(g), a
prisoner incurs a “strike” any time he has a federal lawsuit or appeal dismissed on the
grounds that it is frivolous or malicious or fails to state a claim. Medberry v. Butler, 185
F.3d 1189, 1193 (11th Cir. 1999). If a prisoner incurs three strikes, his ability to proceed
in forma pauperis in federal court is greatly limited: Leave may not be granted unless the
prisoner alleges an imminent danger of serious physical injury. Id.
A review of court records on the U.S. District Web PACER Docket Report reveals
that Plaintiff has filed many lawsuits in federal court and that at least three of his
complaints have been dismissed as frivolous or malicious or for failure to state a claim.
See Cain v. Dept. of Corr., 1:04-CV-03594 (Doc. 2) (N.D. Ga. March 22, 2005); Cain v.
Roger State Prison, 1:05-CV-1580 (Doc. 6) (N.D. Ga. Aug. 31, 2005); Cain v. Warden
Massac, 3:07-CV-032 (Doc. 7) (N.D. Ga. Sept. 27, 2007). Because of this, Plaintiff may
not proceed in forma pauperis unless he can show that he qualifies for the “imminent
danger” exception in § 1915(g). See Medberry, 185 F.3d at 1193. Plaintiff has not
alleged any such danger in his Complaint. Plaintiff’s incoherent and disjointed ramblings
merely complain of past injuries, a crowded cell, “chlorine in [the] water” that causes dry,
peeling and cracked skin, and the dismissals of his past lawsuits. The Court therefore
finds that Plaintiff has failed to show that he is now entitled to proceed in forma pauperis.
See id; Sutton v. Dist. Attorney's Office, 334 F. App’x 278, 279 (11th Cir. 2009).
Leave to proceed in forma pauperis is accordingly DENIED, and Plaintiff’s
Complaint is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED, this 10th day of March, 2015.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
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?