Threatt #182625 v. Arredia et al
Filing
349
OPINION ; signed by Judge Robert Holmes Bell (Judge Robert Holmes Bell, kcb)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION
ANTHONY THREATT #182625,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 2:05-cv-97
Honorable Robert Holmes Bell
TERRI ARREDIA, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________________/
OPINION DENYING LEAVE
TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS - THREE STRIKES
Plaintiff Anthony Threatt, a prisoner incarcerated at Marquette Branch Prison (MBP),
filed an appeal to this Court’s order denying plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment. Plaintiff
seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Because Plaintiff has filed at least three lawsuits which
were dismissed as frivolous, he is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis on appeal under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g). The court will order Plaintiff to pay the $505.00 filing fee on appeal within
twenty-eight days of this opinion and accompanying order, and if Plaintiff fails to do so, his appeal
may be dismissed without prejudice.
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 put into place 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).
-2-
Plaintiff has been an active litigant in the federal courts in Michigan. In more than
three of Plaintiff’s lawsuits, the court entered dismissals on the grounds of frivolous or failure tostate
a claim. See Threatt v. Ramsey et al., No. 2:09-cv-248 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 6, 2010); Threatt v.
Security Classification Committee, No. 1:07-cv-12817 (E.D. Mich. July 18, 2007); Threatt v. Birkett
et al., No. 2:07-cv-11592 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 16, 2007); Threatt v. Fowley et al., No. 1:91-cv-33
(W.D. Mich. Mar. 4, 1991); Threatt v. Kitchen et al., No. 2:91-cv-70336 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 28, 1991).
Although two 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. Plaintiff also has been
deniedleave to proceed in forma pauperis in this Court because he has three strikes. See, e.g., Threatt
v. Mich. Dep’t of Corr. Parole Bd., No. 2:10-cv-335 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 13, 2010); Threatt v. Capello
et al., No. 2:10-cv-111 (W.D. Mich. July 19, 2010); Threatt v. Karppinen, et al., No. 2:10-cv-307
(W.D. Mich. January 26, 2011.
In light of the foregoing, § 1915(g) prohibits Plaintiff from proceeding in forma
pauperis in this appeal. An order consistent with this memorandum opinion shall be entered by the
Court.
Dated: August 20, 2014
/s/ Robert Holmes Bell
ROBERT HOLMES BELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
SEND REMITTANCES TO THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS:
Clerk, U.S. District Court
229 Federal Building
202 W. Washington Street
Marquette, MI 49855
All checks or other forms of payment shall be payable to “Clerk, U.S. District Court.”
-3-
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?