BROWN v. STATE OF GEORGIA et al

Filing 19

ORDER Denying 4 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, 5 Motion for Citizens Demand for a Common Law Trial Jury, 3 Motion requesting a Declaration Judgment Injunction Relief, and 8 Motion for Bill of Particulars to Reveal Nature and Cause. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 8/31/18. (jrb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION
KURTIS LEE BROWN,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF GEORGIA, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

FILED
Scott L. Poff, Clerk
United States District Court

By jburrell at 3:02 pm, Aug 31, 2018

CV418-036

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Kurtis Lee Brown brings this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint
against various state actors regarding his arrest and detention in
Chatham County.

Doc. 1 at 3-5.

The Court, having reviewed his

application to proceed in forma pauperis, granted him leave and ordered
Brown to return the necessary forms. Doc. 16. Upon further review,
however, it has become clear that Brown’s litigation history includes
more than three cases that count as “strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
See Brown v. Georgia State Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, CV517-249 (M.D.
Ga. Oct. 4, 2017) (denying plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed IFP and
dismissing action without prejudice (citing Brown v. Howerton, CV1114080 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 9, 2012) (dismissed for failure to state a claim);
Brown v. Thomas, CV407-124 (S.D. Ga. Dec. 8, 2008) (dismissed for abuse

of judicial process and noting the case should count as a strike for
§ 1915(g) purposes, citing Rivera v. Allin, 144 F.3d 719, 731 (11th Cir.
1998)); Brown v. McConnell, et al., CV409-086 (S.D. Ga. July 27, 2009)
(dismissing a nearly identical malicious prosecution action for failure to
state a claim) 1; Brown v. Ga. Dep’t of Corrs., CV112-3353 (N.D. Ga. Oct.
31, 2012) (adopting recommendation of dismissal based on § 1915(g)).2
Plaintiff is accordingly barred from prosecuting this action IFP unless he
is in imminent danger of serious physical injury.
But Brown’s Complaint does not include any allegation that could
bring him within § 1915(g)’s “imminent danger” exception. See generally
doc. 1. His allegations stem from the 2005 warrant for his arrest and
2007 prosecution and sentence for child molestation in Chatham County
Superior Court, and seeks the return of some money apparently stolen
from him in a grand conspiracy orchestrated by the State of Georgia and
its officials. He attaches a flurry of nonsensical “commercial” documents

1

Brown has also brought his same grievances with his state prosecution in an
untimely 28 U.S.C. §2254 petition. Brown v. Sellers, CV412-153 (S.D. Ga. Aug. 10,
2012); see also Brown v. Georgia, CV413-085 (S.D. Ga. June 13, 2013).
2

Both this Court and the Middle District have noted Brown’s attempts to
circumvent the § 1915(g) bar by utilizing various aliases, including “Curtis Lee
Brown” and “Kurtis Ladell Brown.” See Brown, CV407-124, doc. 12 (S.D. Ga.);
Brown, CV517-249, doc. 11 at n. 2 (M.D. Ga.).
2

signed under a variety of pseudonyms (see, e.g., doc. 1-3 (“commercial
lien” against the federal government, signed “K/Curtis-Lee:Brown-Bey”),
doc. 1-4 (an excerpt from “The Evolution of Redemption,” signed
“K/Curtis-Lee:Brown-Bey© ‘sovereign’/‘moorish’”)), none of which even
hint at “imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
These claims do not plausibly implicate Brown’s physical safety. See, e.g.,
Skillern v. Jackson, 2006 WL 1687752 at * 2 (S.D. Ga. June 14, 2006)
(citing Brown v. Johnson, 387 F.3d 1344, 1349 (11th Cir. 2004))
(imminent danger exception “require[s] specific allegations of present
imminent danger that may result in serious physical harm.”)). Plaintiff’s
Complaint should, therefore, be dismissed. If he wishes to pursue these
claims, he must bring a separate action and pay the full filing fee.
In sum, the Court VACATES its prior Order (doc. 16), recommends
that Brown’s request to proceed IFP be DENIED, and recommends that
Brown’s Complaint should be DISMISSED.

His various motions for

injunctive and other relief (docs. 3, 4, 5 & 8) are DENIED as moot.
This Report and Recommendation (R&R) is submitted to the
district judge assigned to this action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court’s Local Rule 72.3.

3

Within 14 days of

service, any party may file written objections to this R&R with the
Court and serve a copy on all parties.
captioned

“Objections

to

Magistrate

The document should be
Judge’s

Report

and

Recommendations.” Any request for additional time to file objections
should be filed with the Clerk for consideration by the assigned district
judge.
After the objections period has ended, the Clerk shall submit this
R&R together with any objections to the assigned district judge. The
district judge will review the magistrate judge’s findings and
recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are
advised that failure to timely file objections will result in the waiver of
rights on appeal. 11th Cir. R. 3-1; see Symonett v. V.A. Leasing Corp.,
648 F. App’x 787, 790 (11th Cir. 2016); Mitchell v. United States, 612 F.
App’x 542, 545 (11th Cir. 2015).
SO REPORTED AND RECOMMENDED, this
August, 2018.

4

31st

day of