Miles v. Ragione
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Alexander Williams, Jr on 5/31/2013. (c/m 5/31/2013 ns)(nss, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
KELVIN J. MILES, #45410-077
* CIVIL ACTION NO. AW-13-cv-1555
FRANK RAGIONE, et al.
Kelvin Miles’s (“Miles”) prior civil cases illustrate that he served a cumulative 45-year
sentence on rape and kidnapping convictions imposed in Maryland in 1979 and 1980. He was
transferred out of Maryland on May 31, 2012, and is currently confined at a U.S. Bureau of Prisons’
institution in Estill, South Carolina. On May 23, 2013, the court received for filing his request for a
hearing and motion for leave to file an amendment to three different complaints, all of which were
previously dismissed in 1994-1996. Miles contends that he is entitled to file an amended complaint
as a matter of course. This statement, however, carries no weight when a movant is attempting to
amend a complaint seventeen to nineteen years after the complaint has been dismissed with
prejudice. (ECF No. 1). Miles states that the previous cases were dismissed without affording him
the opportunity to amend his actions to “correct his faults or oversights by amended complaints…”
He seemingly accuses Defendants, a former Assistant State’s Attorney and a Maryland Public
Defender, of malpractice and claims that the conditions of his confinement in the Maryland prison
system over a thirty-year period caused him irreparable psychological injury. Lastly, Miles
complains of a detainer issued by the District of Columbia authorities in 1979. (Id.)
Miles’s filing has been construed as a new civil rights action.
Were this court to
substantively review the claims, it would necessarily find the complaint to be without merit as
pleaded. However, as Miles has accumulated over three 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) dismissals of his prison
civil actions, his Complaint is subject to dismissal pursuant to this Court=s authority under 28 U.S.C.
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) states that:
Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the
court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that B
the allegation of poverty is untrue; or
the action or appeal -(i)
is frivolous or malicious;
fails to state a claim on which relief may
be granted; or
seeks monetary relief against a defendant
who is immune from such relief.
In addition, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) mandates that:
In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment
in a civil action or proceeding under this section if the prisoner 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.
The court interprets this provision of the Act to require that once three such dismissals under
§ 1915(e) or Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) have been accumulated, a prisoner will be barred thereafter
from initiating further civil actions in forma pauperis, unless at the time he files the action he is
under imminent danger of serious physical injury.2 See Green v. Young, 454 F.3d 405, 407 (4th Cir.
2006) Debuc v. Johnson, 314 F.3d 1205, 1208-09 (10th Cir. 2003); Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 239
No filing fee or indigency application accompanied Miles’s paperwork. Nonetheless as he is
seeking to amend his prior actions which were filed in forma pauperis, and has always proceeded in forma
pauperis, the court presumes he wishes to proceed without the pre-payment of filing fees.
Of course, this provision does not preclude an inmate from prepaying the full filing fee to refile claims previously rejected under §1915(g).
F.3d. 307, 313 (3rd Cir. 2001).
Given the application of the aforementioned statute, this action shall not be permitted to
proceed. Review of Miles’s prior § 1983 actions discloses that five of his actions were dismissed
without requiring service of process on defendants because they were frivolous or had failed to state
a constitutional claim for federal district court consideration.3 In all five cases, Miles was granted
leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to § 1915(a). In light of these previous "strikes" and the
fact that Miles’s instant allegations plainly do not meet the Aimminent danger@ exception, this action
shall be dismissed pursuant to § 1915(g). Miles shall be denied leave to proceed without the
prepayment of court costs. He may, however, resume any claims dismissed under § 1915(g) under
the fee provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1914 applicable to all litigants.
A separate Order reflecting this opinion shall follow.
Date: May 31st, 2013
Alexander Williams Jr.
United States District Judge
In reaching this decision, the court relies upon the prior orders of dismissal set out in Miles v.
Reginoe, et al., Civil Action No. S-94-2663 (D. Md.); Miles v. Robinson, et al., Civil Action No. S-95-899 (D.
Md.); Miles v. Chance, Civil Action No. S-95-1163 (D. Md.); Miles v. Robinson, et al., Civil Action No. S96-695 (D. Md.); and Miles v. Governor, et al., Civil Action No. S-96-1921 (D. Md.). See Evans v. Illinois
Dep=t of Corrections, 150 F.3d 810, 812 (7th Cir. 1998) (district court must cite specific case information upon
which it issues a § 1915(g)dismissal).
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?