Hilton v. Fullerton

Filing 9

ORDER Denying the Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 2 and Dismissing the Complaint 1 Without Prejudice Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(g). Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (LSau)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

EDWARD LEE HILTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
JUDITH A. FULLERTON,

CASE NO. 17-CV-11961
HONORABLE DENISE PAGE HOOD

Defendant.
_____________________________/

ORDER DENYING THE MOTION TO PROCEED
IN FORMA PAUPERIS [2] AND DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT [1]
WITHOUT PREJUDICE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)

On June 9, 2017, Plaintiff Edward Lee Hilton filed a pro se complaint under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. No. 1) and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc.
No. 2). At the time, Plaintiff was a pretrial detainee confined at the Genesee
County Jail in Flint, Michigan.
Three of Plaintiff’s previous complaints have been dismissed as frivolous or
for failure to state a claim. See Hilton v. Gleason, No. 17-cv-10513 (E.D. Mich.
Feb. 28, 2017); Hilton v. Scott, No. 16-cv-14384 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 21, 2016); and
Hilton v. Pickell, No. 16-cv-10771 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 16, 2016). Under the “three
strikes” provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a court generally may not grant in forma
pauperis to a prisoner who “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.”1 Accordingly, on August 23,
2017, the Court ordered Plaintiff to prepay the filing and administrative fees for
this case or to show cause why his complaint should not be dismissed for failure to
prepay the fees.
On August 30, 2017, Plaintiff responded to the Court’s order by stating that
he does not have the necessary funds to prepay the filing and administrative fees.
He also maintains that he does not have “three strikes” because the Court withheld
money from his prison account to pay the filing fees in his previous cases, and he
believes that he has paid those fees in full. (Doc. No. 6)
Plaintiff did not prepay the filing fees for his previous cases. It appears
instead that he paid, or is still paying, the filing fees on an installment basis, and
each of the three prior cases listed above was dismissed as frivolous or for failure
to state a claim. Plaintiff has “three strikes,” and he is not claiming to be under
imminent danger of serious physical injury.
Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is DENIED and
his complaint (Doc. No. 1) is summarily DISMISSED without prejudice under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g).
S/Denise Page Hood
Dated: October 30, 2017
Chief Judge, United States District Court
1

An exception to this rule applies when “the prisoner is under imminent danger of
serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
2

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of
record on October 30, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry
Case Manager

3