WRIGHT v. TRAMMELL et al
ORDER DISMISSING without prejudice 1 Plaintiff's Complaint. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 3/8/2018. (tlh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
WILLIE FRANK WRIGHT, JR
JUDGE BRENDA H TRAMMELL
Pro se Plaintiff Willie Frank Wright, Jr, currently confined at Autry State Prison,
submitted a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff raises two claims for relief
in his complaint. He alleges (1) that Judge Brenda Trammel violated Plaintiff’s rights
during his divorce proceedings, and (2) that his rights were violated by the prosecutor,
presiding judge, and clerk of Baldwin County during an unidentified post-conviction
proceeding. Plaintiff states that the latter claim “will not invalidate his conviction and is
being filed so that he may get a full hearing.” Compl. 7, ECF No.1. Plaintiff has not paid
the Court’s filing fee, therefore, it is presumed that he wishes to proceed in this action in
The Court has now reviewed the complaint and all other submissions and finds that
Plaintiff may not proceed in this action without first prepaying the full $400.00 filing fee,
as at least three of his prior federal lawsuits were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for
failure to state a claim and count as “strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Consequently,
Plaintiff’s may not proceed in forma pauperis and this action is DISMISSED without
Federal law prohibits a prisoner from bringing a civil action in federal court in forma
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 and leave may not be granted unless
the prisoner shows an “imminent danger of serious physical injury.” Id.
A review of court records on the Federal Judiciary’s Public Access to Court
Electronic Records (“PACER”) database reveals that Plaintiff has filed numerous federal
lawsuits and appeals and at least three were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure
to state a claim. See Wright v. Massey, 5:11-cv-491-MTT (M.D. Ga. 2011) (dismissed for
failure to state a claim); Wright v. Hicks, 5:10-cv-246-MTT (M.D. Ga., 2010) (dismissed
as frivolous); Wright v. Waller, 5:10-cv-254 (MTT) (M.D. Ga. Aug. 23, 2011) (dismissed
for failure to exhaust administrative remedies); Wright v. Commissioner, Georgia Dept. et
al., No. 14-10572 (11th Cir. 2014) (“This Court has determined that the “three strikes”
provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 is application to [Plainitff].”)
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). Rivera v. Allen, 144
F.3d 719, 731 (11th Cir. 1998) (holding that dismissal for providing false filing history is
a strike under § 1915(g)), abrogated on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 21617 (2007) To satisfy this provision a prisoner must allege specific facts that describe “an
ongoing serious physical injury, or of a pattern of misconduct evidencing the likelihood of
imminent serious physical injury.” Sutton v. Dist. Attorney's Office, 334 F. App’x 278,
279 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Brown v. Johnson, 387 F.3d 1344, 1350 (11th Cir. 2004)).
When reviewing a pro se prisoner’s complaint for this purpose, the district court must
accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true and view all allegations of imminent
danger in Plaintiff’s favor. Brown, 387 F.3d at 1347; Tannenbaum v. United States, 148
F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998).
Plaintiff does not allege that he is under imminent
danger of serious physical injury, and neither the alleged procedural defects in Plaintiff’s
divorce proceedings nor the defects alleged in the unidentified post-conviction proceedings
arguably implicate a risk of serious injury. Accordingly, Plaintiff does not qualify under
the imminent danger exception.
Because Plaintiff has three prior dismissals that properly qualify as strikes under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g), he may not proceed in forma pauperis in this action. Once a plaintiff is
denied in forma pauperis status, he cannot simply pay the filing fee and proceed with his
complaint. Dupree v. Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234, 1236 (11th Cir. 2002). Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. Id. (the proper procedure is to
dismiss the complaint without prejudice).
SO ORDERED, this 8th day of March, 2018.
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?