Grace v. Lombardia et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis under 42:1983 (prisoner) filed by Plaintiff William J. Grace, Sr. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in formapauperis [ECF No. 2] is DENIED. An Order of Dismissal will be filed separately. Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 11/24/14. (CSG)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WILLIAM J. GRACE, SR.,
GEORGE A. LOMBARDI, et al.,
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.”
After reviewing the complaint, the Court finds no allegations that would show that
plaintiff is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. Although the plaintiff states in
conclusory fashion that his life is put in imminent danger, all of the allegations of the complaint
pertain to an incident involving use of force in the past. “[T]he [imminent danger of serious
physical injury] exception focuses on the risk that the conduct complained of threatens
continuing or future injury, not on whether the inmate deserves a remedy for past misconduct.”
Martin v. Shelton, 319 F.3d 1048, 1050 (8th Cir. 2003). “By using the term ‘imminent,’
Congress indicated that it wanted to include a safety valve for the ‘three strikes’ rule to prevent
impending harms, not those harms that had already occurred.” Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 239
Grace v. Stubblefield, 4:07-CV-1630 ERW (E.D. Mo.); Grace v. Owens, 4:08-CV-89 CDP
(E.D. Mo.); Grace v. Chastain, 4:08-CV-598 FRB (E.D. Mo.); Grace v. Allen, 4:08-CV-619
CAS (E.D. Mo.); and Grace v. Jones, 4:08-CV-620 FRB (E.D. Mo.).
F.3d 307, 315 (8th Cir. 2001); cf. Coleman v. Crawford, 571 Fed. Appx. 502 (8th Cir. 2014)
(applying exception where an inmate alleged that he was threatened with bodily harm by prison
officials, forced to sign “enemy” waivers, and assaulted multiple times by other inmates);
McAlphin v. Toney, 281 F.3d 709, 710–11 (8th Cir. 2002) (applying exception where an inmate
alleged deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs that resulted in five tooth extractions
and a spreading mouth infection requiring two additional extractions); Ashley v. Dilworth, 147
F.3d 715, 717 (8th Cir. 1998) (applying exception where an inmate alleged that prison officials
continued to place him near his inmate enemies, despite two prior stabbings).
As a result, the Court will deny the motion and will dismiss this action without prejudice
to refiling as a fully paid complaint.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis [ECF No. 2] is DENIED.
An Order of Dismissal will be filed separately.
Dated this 24th day of November, 2014.
CAROL E. JACKSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?