Heard v. Danforth et al

Filing 8

ORDER denying 7 Motion for Reconsideration. Ordered by Judge Hugh Lawson on 2/13/2012. (nbp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
VALDOSTA DIVISION
ROBERT HEARD,

:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
VS.
:
:
Warden DANFORTH, et. al.
:
:
:
Defendants.
:
_____________________________________

NO. 7:12-CV-005-HL-TQL

ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Plaintiff ROBERT HEARD, a prisoner at Valdosta State Prison in Valdosta, Georgia, has
moved for the Court to reconsider its Order dismissing his Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(g). In his Motion, Plaintiff questions the Court’s authority to dismiss his Complaint and
suggests that the Court erred in finding that he failed to satisfy the requirements for the “imminent
danger of serious physical injury” exception to § 1915(g).
The Court is not persuaded that there was any error in its prior Order. Authority for the
Court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint is found in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff should be
familiar with this statute, as he has already had multiple suits dismissed under the “three strikes”
provision. See e.g., Heard v. Tanner, 3:11-cv-0099 (S.D. Ga.) (dismissed Jan. 11, 2012); Heard v.
Pannell, 1:11-cv-4021-CAP (N.D. Ga. dismissed Dec. 30, 2011); Heard v. Allbade, 5:11-cv-508CAR (M.D. Ga.) (dismissed Jan. 6, 2011); Heard v. Master Lock, 1:11-cv-3783-CAP (dismissed
Nov. 28, 2011); Heard v. Edenfield, 1:11-cv-2828 (N.D. Ga.) (dismissed Oct. 11, 2011); Heard v.
Terry, 5:10-cv-442-CAR (M.D. Ga.) (dismissed Dec. 21, 2010); Heard v. Owens, 1:10-cv-2403CAP (dismissed Sept. 16, 2010); Heard v. Donald, 1:10-cv-01726-WCO (dismissed July 27, 2010);

Heard v. Donald, 1:10-cv-2630-CAP (N.D. Ga.) (dismissed Aug. 31, 2010); Heard v. Purdue, 1:10cv-02722-CAP (dismissed Oct. 7, 2010).
Plaintiff’s Complaint and Motion also fail to demonstrate that he is in “imminent danger of
serious physical injury.” Plaintiff’s allegations of past injury and generalized suggestions of a
possible threat of injury do not satisfy the requirements for this exception to § 1915(g). See
Medberry v. Butler, 185 F.3d 1189, 1193 (11th Cir. 1999) (“ . . . a prisoner's allegation that he faced
imminent danger sometime in the past is an insufficient basis to allow him to proceed in forma
pauperis pursuant to the imminent danger exception to the statute.”); Odum v. Bryan County
Judicial Circuit, 2008 WL 766661 at * 1 (S.D. Ga. March 20, 2008) (“General and conclusory
allegations not grounded in specific facts indicating that injury is imminent cannot invoke the §
1915(g) exception.”).
The present Motion for Reconsideration is accordingly DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this 13th day of February, 2012.
s/ Hugh Lawson
HUGH LAWSON, Senior Judge
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
jlr