Spikes v. Miller et al

Filing 5

ORDER AND REASONS denying 4 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael North. (bwn)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JAMES JERROD SPIKES

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO.

JIM MILLER, ET AL.

SECTION: AB@(5)

17-4861

ORDER AND REASONS
The instant 42 U.S.C. § 1983 proceeding was filed in forma pauperis by pro se Plaintiff,
James Spikes, against Defendants, alleging violation of his civil rights due to prison officials’
tampering with evidence related to his criminal case.
injunctive relief.

(Id.)

(Rec. doc. 1).

He requests

This is a non-dispositive pretrial matter which was referred to the

undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 72.1(B)(1) and 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1).
The Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321,
signed into law on April 26, 1996, now codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), provides that a
prisoner shall not be allowed to bring a civil action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 if he has, on
three 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 grounds that it was
frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted, unless the
prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
Spikes, a frequent litigant in federal court, has filed numerous civil actions while
incarcerated.

The Court’s records establish that at least three of his prior § 1983

complaints were dismissed as frivolous and/or for failure to state a claim upon which relief
could be granted. See James Jerrod Spikes v. Randy Seal, et al., C.A. No. 16-2794 “H”(1) (E.D.
La. March 13, 2017); James Jerrod Spikes v. Randy Seal, et al., C.A. No. 14-3004 “R”(1) (E.D. La.

March 14, 2016); James Jerrod Spikes v. Bogalusa Police Dept., et al., C.A. No 14-2968 “H”(2)
(E.D. La. April 17, 2015).

He has therefore accumulated three “strikes” under the PLRA.

Plaintiff may not proceed as a pauper in this action unless he fits within the “imminent
danger” exception of § 1915(g), which applies to prisoners “under imminent danger of
serious physical injury.”

In the present case, Plaintiff has not alleged, nor does his

complaint demonstrate, that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury.
Consequently, Plaintiff is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to the provisions
of the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is
DENIED.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

New Orleans, Louisiana, this

30th day of

May

, 2017.

MICHAEL B. NORTH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2