White #285964 v. Renico et al
Filing
9
OPINION Denying Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis - Three Strikes ; signed by Judge R. Allan Edgar (Judge R. Allan Edgar, cam)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION
KALA WHITE,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 2:13-cv-158
Honorable R. Allan Edgar
PAUL RENICO et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________________/
OPINION DENYING LEAVE
TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS - THREE STRIKES
Plaintiff Kala White, a prisoner incarcerated at Baraga Maximum Correctional Facility,
filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (docket #4). The Court has since learned that Plaintiff has filed at least three lawsuits that
were dismissed as frivolous, malicious or for failure to state a claim, and, thus, is barred from
proceeding in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Accordingly, the Court will vacate the order
granting Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis and will order Plaintiff to pay the $370.00
balance of the civil action filing fee within twenty-eight (28) days of this opinion and accompanying
order.1 If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, the Court will dismiss his action without prejudice.
Even if the case is dismissed, Plaintiff will be responsible for payment of the remaining $370.00 in
accordance with In re Alea, 286 F.3d 378, 380-81 (6th Cir. 2002).
1
As of May 1, 2013, the civil action filing fee is $400.00. Plaintiff already has made a payment of $30.00 toward
the filing fee, so the current balance due is $370.00
Discussion
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
-2-
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. The Court has
dismissed three of Plaintiff’s lawsuits for failure to state a claim. See White v. Hathaway et al., 2:09cv-134 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 1, 2009); White v. Williams et al., 2:07-cv-220 (W.D. Mich. Apr. 11, 2008);
White v. Mich. Dep’t of Corre., 2:07-cv-86 (W.D. Mich. Nov. 15, 2007). Moreover, 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.
In light of the foregoing, § 1915(g) prohibits Plaintiff from proceeding in forma
pauperis in this action. Plaintiff has twenty-eight (28) days from the date of entry of this order to pay
the remaining balance of the civil action filing fee, which is $370.00. 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 fails to pay the filing fee within the 28-day period, his case will be dismissed without
prejudice, but he will continue to be responsible for payment of the remainder of the filing fee.
Dated:
6/24/2013
/s/ R. Allan Edgar
R. Allan Edgar
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.”
-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?