McGore #142739 v. Unknown Part(y)(ies) #1 et al
OPINION; signed by District Judge Paul L. Maloney (Judge Paul L. Maloney, cmc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Case No. 1:18-cv-92
Honorable Paul L. Maloney
UNKNOWN PARTIES et al.,
OPINION DENYING LEAVE
TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS - THREE STRIKES
This is a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at the Baraga Correctional Facility (AMF) in Baraga, Michigan.
Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 2). However, because Plaintiff has
filed at least three lawsuits that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious or for failure to state a
claim, he is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The Court will
deny Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and will order Plaintiff to pay the
$400.00 civil action filing fee applicable to those not permitted to proceed in forma pauperis. This
fee must be paid within twenty-eight (28) days of this opinion and accompanying order. If Plaintiff
fails to pay the fee, the Court will order that this case be dismissed without prejudice. Even if the
case is dismissed, Plaintiff must pay the $400.00 filing fee in accordance with In re Alea, 286 F.3d
378, 380-81 (6th Cir. 2002).
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321
(1996), which was enacted on April 26, 1996, amended the procedural rules governing a prisoner’s
request for the privilege of proceeding in forma pauperis. As the Sixth Circuit has stated, the
PLRA was “aimed at the skyrocketing numbers of claims filed by prisoners – many of which are
meritless – and the corresponding burden those filings have placed on the federal courts.”
Hampton v. Hobbs, 106 F.3d 1281, 1286 (6th Cir. 1997). For that reason, Congress created
economic incentives to prompt a prisoner to “stop and think” before filing a complaint. Id. For
example, a prisoner is liable for the civil action filing fee, and if the prisoner qualifies to proceed
in forma pauperis, the prisoner may pay the fee through partial payments as outlined in 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(b). The constitutionality of the fee requirements of the PLRA has been upheld by the Sixth
Circuit. Id. at 1288.
In addition, another provision reinforces the “stop and think” aspect of the PLRA
by preventing a prisoner from proceeding in forma pauperis when the prisoner repeatedly files
meritless lawsuits. Known as the “three-strikes” rule, the provision states:
In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a
civil action or proceeding under [the section governing proceedings in forma
pauperis] 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.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The statutory restriction “[i]n no event,” found in § 1915(g), is express and
unequivocal. The statute does allow an exception for a prisoner who is “under imminent danger
of serious physical injury.” The Sixth Circuit has upheld the constitutionality of the three-strikes
rule against arguments that it violates equal protection, the right of access to the courts, and due
process, and that it constitutes a bill of attainder and is ex post facto legislation. Wilson v. Yaklich,
148 F.3d 596, 604-06 (6th Cir. 1998); accord Pointer v. Wilkinson, 502 F.3d 369, 377
(6th Cir. 2007) (citing Wilson, 148 F.3d at 604-06); Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1178-82
(9th Cir. 1999); Rivera v. Allin, 144 F.3d 719, 723-26 (11th Cir. 1998); Carson v. Johnson, 112
F.3d 818, 821-22 (5th Cir. 1997).
Plaintiff has been an active litigant in the federal courts in Michigan. In many more
than three of Plaintiff’s lawsuits, the Court entered dismissals on the grounds that the cases were
frivolous, malicious or failed to state a claim. See McGore v. Wrigglesworth et al., No. 5:96-cv197 (W.D. Mich. Jan 8, 1997); McGore v. Mich. Sup. Ct. Judges, No. 1:94-cv-517 (W.D. Mich.
Jan. 25, 1995); McGore v. Nardi et al., No. 2:93-cv-137 (W.D. Mich. Aug. 2, 1993); McGore v.
Stine et al., No. 2:93-cv-112 (W.D. Mich. July 26, 1993); McGore v. Stine et al., No. 2:93-cv-77
(W.D. Mich. Apr. 30, 1993). Although many of the dismissals were entered before enactment of
the PLRA on April 26, 1996, the dismissals nevertheless count as strikes. See Wilson, 148 F.3d at
604. In addition, Plaintiff previously has been denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis on
numerous occasions for having three strikes.
Moreover, notwithstanding his invocation of the words “imminent danger,”
Plaintiff’s allegations do not fall within the exception to the three-strikes rule because he does not
allege any facts establishing that he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. Instead,
his allegations relate to denials of medical care by personnel at the Bellamy Creek Correctional
Facility (ICF) in Ionia, Michigan, the facility in which Plaintiff was incarcerated before his transfer
In order to allege sufficiently imminent danger, we have held that “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) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Thus a prisoner’s
assertion that he or she faced danger in the past is insufficient to invoke the
exception.” Id. at 797–98; see also [Taylor v. First Med. Mgmt., 508 F. App’x 488,
492 (6th Cir. 2012)] (“Allegations of past dangers are insufficient to invoke the
exception.”); Percival v. Gerth, 443 F. App’x 944, 946 (6th Cir. 2011) (“Assertions
of past danger will not satisfy the ‘imminent danger’ exception.”); cf. [Pointer v.
Wilkinson, 502 F.3d 369, 371 n.1 (6th Cir. 2007)] (implying that past danger is
insufficient for the imminent-danger exception).
In addition to a temporal requirement, we have explained that the
allegations must be sufficient to allow a court to draw reasonable inferences that
the danger exists. To that end, “district courts may deny a prisoner leave to proceed
pursuant to § 1915(g) when the prisoner’s claims of imminent danger are
conclusory or ridiculous, or are clearly baseless (i.e. are fantastic or delusional and
rise to the level of irrational or wholly incredible).” Rittner, 290 F. App’x at 798
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Taylor, 508 F. App’x at
492 (“Allegations that are conclusory, ridiculous, or clearly baseless are also
insufficient for purposes of the imminent-danger exception.”).
Vandiver v. Prison Health Services, Inc., 727 F.3d 580, 585 (6th Cir. 2013). Plaintiff’s claims
relate to harms allegedly caused months ago and, because he is no longer under the care of the
persons who were allegedly deliberately indifferent to his needs, utterly fail to demonstrate that
Plaintiff faces an imminent danger of future serious physical injury.
Therefore, § 1915(g) prohibits Plaintiff from proceeding in forma pauperis in this
action. As a consequence, the Court will deny pauper status to Plaintiff. Plaintiff has twenty-eight
(28) days from the date of entry of this order to pay the entire civil action filing fee, which is
$400.00. When Plaintiff pays his filing fee, the Court will screen his complaint as required by 28
U.S.C. § 1915A and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c). If Plaintiff does not pay the filing fee within the 28day period, this case will be dismissed without prejudice, but Plaintiff will continue to be
responsible for payment of the $400.00 filing fee.
February 12, 2018
/s/ Paul L. Maloney
Paul L. Maloney
United States District Judge
SEND REMITTANCES TO THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS:
Clerk, U.S. District Court
399 Federal Building
110 Michigan Street, NW
Grand Rapids, MI 49503
All checks or other forms of payment shall be payable to “Clerk, U.S. District Court.”
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?