Fuller v. Washington et al
Filing
5
OPINION AND ORDER Dismissing Complaint and Denying 2 Motion for Waiver of Fees and Costs and Denying 3 Motion for Summons of Complaint. Signed by District Judge George Caram Steeh. (BSau)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
RALEEM-X #211080
(a/k/a CURTIS FULLER),
Plaintiff,
v.
CASE No. 2:21-CV-12141
HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH
HEIDI WASHINGTON, et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND DENYING
MOTION FOR WAIVER OF FEES AND COSTS (ECF NO. 2) AND
MOTION FOR SUMMONS OF COMPLAINT (ECF NO. 3)
I.
Plaintiff raleem-x1 (a/k/a Curtis Fuller)2 has filed a pro se civil rights
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is a state prisoner
currently incarcerated at the Earnest C. Brooks Correctional Facility in
Muskegon, Michigan. In addition to his complaint, filed August 27, 2021,
Plaintiff has exhibited a clear preference his name be presented in
lowercase. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.34.)
1
The Court obtained the plaintiff's other name from prior civil cases as well
as from the Michigan Department of Corrections' Offender Tracking
Information System (OTIS), of which this Court may take judicial notice.
Ward v. Wolfenbarger, 323 F. Supp. 2d 818, 821, n. 3 (E.D. Mich. 2004).
-12
plaintiff filed a motion for waiver of fees and costs (ECF No. 2), and a
motion for summons of complaint due to his indigent status. (ECF No. 3.)
Upon review of the plaintiff's case and his litigation history in the
federal courts, this Court concludes that the civil rights complaint must be
dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The plaintiff’s
motions will also be denied.
II.
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) provides that “[t]he clerk of each district
court shall require the parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding
in such court, whether by original process, removal or otherwise, to pay a
filing fee of $350[.]” See also Owens v. Keeling, 461 F. 3d 763, 773 (6th
Cir. 2006). Plaintiff failed to pay the filing fee when he filed his complaint,
instead filing a motion for waiver of fees and costs. (ECF No. 2.)
The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) states that “if a
prisoner brings a civil action or files an appeal in forma pauperis, the
prisoner shall be required to pay the full amount of a filing fee.” 28 U.S.C. §
1915(b)(1) (as amended). See also In Re Prison Litigation Reform Act, 105
F. 3d 1131, 1138 (6th Cir. 1997). The in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a), provides prisoners the opportunity to make a “downpayment” of
a partial filing fee and pay the remainder in installments. See Miller v.
-2-
Campbell, 108 F. Supp. 2d 960, 962 (W.D. Tenn. 2000). However, a
prisoner seeking to proceed without prepaying the necessary fees and
costs may not do so if on three or more occasions a federal court has
dismissed previous complaints because they were frivolous, malicious, or
failed to state a claim for which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g);
Edwards v. Gaul, 40 F. App'x 970, 971 (6th Cir. 2002).
III.
In a prior civil action by the same plaintiff, this Court identified four
civil rights complaints which were dismissed by federal courts for being
frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be
granted. See Raleem-X v. Brown, No. 2:16-CV-11899, 2016 WL 3197579,
at *1 (E.D. Mich. June 9, 2016) (citing Fuller v. Gerth et al., No. 2:12–cv–
368 (W.D. Mich. Nov. 20, 2012); Fuller v. Huss et al., No. 1:12–cv–926
(W.D. Mich. Sept. 28, 2012); Fuller v. Bouchard, No. 2:04–cv–35 (W.D.
Mich. Apr. 2, 2004); aff'd, No. 04–2217 (6th Cir. Sept. 30, 2005); Fuller v.
Calvin et al., No. 2:00–cv–225 (W.D. Mich. May 29, 2001); aff'd, 28 Fed.
Appx. 390 (6th Cir. 2002)).
In addition to the Court’s 2016 order in Raleem-X v. Brown, the
plaintiff has been denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis numerous
times under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Raleem-X v. Borgerding, No. 2:19-3-
CV-11477, Docket No. 5 (E.D. Mich. June 17, 2019)) (Order); Fuller v.
Washington, No. 18-CV-13173, 2019 WL 1294128, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Mar.
21, 2019), appeal dismissed, No. 19-1695, 2020 WL 3429463 (6th Cir. Jan.
15, 2020); Raleem-X v. Borgerding, No. 16-CV-12234, 2016 WL 4800877,
at *1 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 14, 2016) (citing Fuller, et al. v. PCS Daily Dial
Phone Co., No. 16-CV-11960, 2016 WL 3549481 (E.D. Mich. June 30,
2016); Raleem-X v. Brown, No. 16-cv-10305, 2016 WL 465487 (E.D. Mich.
Feb. 8, 2016); Fuller v. PCS Daily Dial Phone Co., No. 2:15-cv-13620,
2015 WL 6438915 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 23, 2015); Fuller v. Sherve, No. 1:12cv-861, 2014 WL 1347430 (W.D. Mich. Apr. 4, 2014); Fuller v. Caruso, No.
2:12-cv-480, 2013 WL 1830856 (W.D. Mich. Apr. 30, 2013)).
Plaintiff is clearly a “three-striker” who cannot proceed without
prepaying the filing fee. Nor does he qualify for the only exception to the
three-strikes rule, for which a prisoner must show he or she is in “imminent
danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). To meet this
exception, “the threat or prison condition ‘must be real and proximate’ and
the danger of serious physical injury must exist at the time the complaint is
filed.” Rittner v. Kinder, 290 F. App'x 796, 797 (6th Cir. 2008) (citations
omitted). An assertion of past dangers will not qualify. Id. at 797–98. The
-4-
imminent danger must be contemporaneous with the complaint's filing. See
Vandiver v. Vasbinder, 416 F. App’x 560, 562 (6th Cir. 2011).
The plaintiff claims his religious rights under the First and Fourteenth
amendments have been violated by his improper designation as a member
of a Security Threat Group (STG). (See, e.g., Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.5,
12, 19, 20.) He asserts that because of that status and/or because of his
religious beliefs, he has been denied privileges, harassed, threatened, and
subject to false misconduct charges. (See, e.g., id. at PageID.4, 10, 13, 15,
18.)
However, the plaintiff’s allegations do not appear to be
contemporaneous to the filing of his complaint. His most recent dated
factual allegation occurred in May 2018. (Id. at PageID.18-19.) Undated
allegations which follow describe the consequences of his STG status,
including ineligibility for a work assignment and the denial of a loan to
purchase personal hygiene supplies. (Id. at PageID.20-21.) None of these
claims indicate the plaintiff is under a current threat of serious physical
harm.
The plaintiff’s most egregious allegation is that six white corrections
officers beat him while he was handcuffed. (Id. at PageID.20.) However, he
does not indicate when or where the incident occurred, and provides no
-5-
facts which would lead the Court to conclude he remains under threat of
another such assault. And again, assertions of past dangers are
”‘insufficient to invoke the [imminent danger] exception.’” Vandiver v. Prison
Health Servs., Inc., 727 F.3d 580, 585 (6th Cir. 2013) (citing Rittner, 290 F.
App’x at 797–98) (other citations omitted).
IV.
Accordingly, the plaintiff’s motion for waiver of fees and costs (ECF No.
2) is DENIED and the complaint DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(g). This dismissal is without prejudice to the plaintiff filing a new
complaint, but he must first pay all fees and costs.
The plaintiff’s motion for summons of complaint (ECF No. 3) is also
DENIED.
Finally, the Court concludes that because it has properly applied the
“three strikes” provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), an appeal from this order
cannot be taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Coppedge v.
United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 29, 2021
s/George Caram Steeh
GEORGE CARAM STEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-6-
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on
September 29, 2021, by electronic and/or ordinary mail and
also on raleem-x a/k/a Curtis Fuller #211080, Earnest C.
Brooks Correctional Facility, 2500 S. Sheridan Drive
Muskegon Heights, MI 49444.
s/Brianna Sauve
Deputy Clerk
-7-
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?