Campbell v. Mitchem et al

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis under 42:1983 (prisoner) filed by Plaintiff Maurice Campbell motion is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED, without prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 10/10/12. (MRS) Modified on 10/10/2012 (MRS).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
MAURICE CAMPBELL,
Plaintiff,
v.
TRACEY MITCHEM, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:12CV101 SNLJ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma
pauperis. Plaintiff, a prisoner, has filed at least three previous cases that were
dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim.1 Under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g), therefore, the Court may not grant the motion unless plaintiff “is under
imminent danger of serious physical injury.”
Plaintiff claims that he is under “imminent danger” due to his chronic allergies.
However, the record submitted by plaintiff shows that plaintiff is receiving daily
medical treatment for his allergies. And “mere disagreement with treatment decisions
does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation.” Estate of Rosenberg v.
Crandell, 56 F.3d 35, 37 (8th Cir. 1995). Moreover, there is no indication in

1

Campbell v. Rowley, 2:04CV71 JCH (E.D. Mo.); Campbell v. Rowley,
2:03CV21 JCH (E.D. Mo.); and Campbell v. Becton, 4:00CV1100 RWS (E.D. Mo.).

plaintiff’s complaint that his chronic and daily allergy conditions evidence the
“likelihood of imminent serious physical injury” sufficient to invoke the exception
to § 1915(g). See, e.g., Martin v. Shelton, 319 F.3d 1048, 1050 (8th Cir. 2003).
After reviewing the complaint as a whole, the Court finds no allegations that
would show that plaintiff is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. As a
result, the Court will deny the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and will dismiss
this action without prejudice to refiling as a fully paid complaint.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma
pauperis [Doc. #2] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED, without
prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
An Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and Order.
Dated this 10th day of October, 2012.

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-