Banks v. Roe et al
ORDER denying application for leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee and dismissing complaint. Signed by District Judge Sean F. Cox. (DPer)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Civil Number: 2:17-cv-12273
HONORABLE SEAN F. COX
ADRIAN ROE, ET AL.,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION FOR LEAVE
TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF THE FILING FEE
AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT
Frederick Banks, an inmate in the Northeast Ohio Correctional Center, has filed a
petition for a writ of mandamus, arguing that defendants have conspired to delay
proceedings in his criminal case. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief.
Plaintiff has requested that he be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in this case. See
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) (1996). For the reasons stated below, the Court will deny Plaintiff
leave to proceed in forma pauperis and will dismiss the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat.
1321 (1996), a prisoner is prevented from proceeding in forma pauperis in a civil action
under certain circumstances. The statute states, in relevant part:
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.
42 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
In short, this “three strikes” provision allows the court to dismiss a case where the
prisoner seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, if, on three or more previous occasions, a
federal court has dismissed the prisoner’s action because it was frivolous or malicious or
failed to state a claim for which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (1996);
Edwards v. Gaul, 40 F. App’x 970, 971 (6th Cir. 2002) (holding that district court
properly dismissed without prejudice a prisoner’s civil rights complaint barred by the
“three strikes” provision).
Plaintiff has filed at least three prior civil rights complaints that have been
dismissed by federal courts for being frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a claim
upon which relief could be granted. See Banks v. Renewal, Inc., No. 13-129, 2013 WL
967959 (W.D. Pa. Mar.11, 2013); Banks v. Outlaw, No. 2:12CV00094, 2012 WL
2183038, at *1 (E.D. Ark. June 14, 2012) (citing Banks v. U.S. Marshal, 274 F. App’x
631 (10th Cir. 2008)); Banks v. Pennsylvania, No. 09-1437, 2010 WL 569545 (W.D. Pa.
Jan.4, 2010) (denying plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing
action pursuant to three strikes rule set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)).
A plaintiff may maintain a civil action despite having had three or more civil
actions dismissed as frivolous if the prisoner is “under imminent danger of serious
physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). To establish that his complaint falls within the
statutory exception to the three strikes rule, a prisoner must allege that he is under
imminent danger at the time that he seeks to file his complaint and proceed in forma
pauperis. Vandiver v. Vasbinder, 416 F. App’x 561 (6th Cir. Mar. 28, 2011). Plaintiff
fails to allege any facts to establish that the claimed violations place him in imminent
danger of physical injury. Mulazim v. Michigan Department of Corrections, 28 F. App’x
470, 472 (6th Cir. 2002).
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed
without prepayment of the filing fee. Additionally, the Court DISMISSES the complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Dated: September 1, 2017
s/Sean F. Cox
Sean F. Cox
U. S. District Judge
I hereby certify that on September 1, 2017, the foregoing document was served on
counsel of record via electronic means and upon Frederick Banks via First Class mail at
the address below:
2240 Hubbard Road
Youngstown, OH 44505
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?