Afiz v. Missouri Department of Corrections

Filing 5

OPINION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice to plaintiff re-filing the complaint upon payment of the $400 filing fee.IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in good faith.An Order of Dismissal will be filed separately. Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 8/4/17. (CLA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DISTRICT
ABDUL AL-HAKEEM AFIZ,
a/k/a Miron Taylor,
Plaintiff,
v.
MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:17CV1920 HEA

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the submission of an unsigned complaint by
plaintiff Abdul Al-Hakeem Afiz, also known as Miron Taylor. This action will be dismissed
without prejudice to plaintiff re-filing the complaint upon payment of the $400 filing fee.
Plaintiff, a prisoner and frequent filer of frivolous lawsuits, is subject to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(g), which limits a prisoner’s ability to obtain in forma pauperis status if he has filed at least
three actions that have been dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim.
Section 1915(g) provides in relevant part:
In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action ... under this section if the prisoner
has, on three or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any
facility, brought an action ... 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). Section 1915(g) is commonly known as the “three strikes” rule, and it has
withstood constitutional challenges. See Higgins v. Carpenter, 258 F.3d 797, 799 (8th Cir.
2001).

Review of this Court’s files reveals that plaintiff has accumulated more than three strikes.
See Taylor v. Toelke, No. 4:97-cv-53-FRB (E.D. Mo. Feb. 24, 1997); Afiz v. Federal Bureau of
Prisons, No. 4:97-cv-1661-DDN (Oct. 15, 1997); Afiz v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, No. 4:97cv-1681-CEJ (Oct. 15, 1997); see also Afiz v. Petri, 2:09-cv-4005-NKL (W.D. Mo. Jul. 31,
2009) (listing cases dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)). Therefore, this Court would be
unable to permit him to proceed in forma pauperis unless he “is under imminent danger of
serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
There are no allegations in the complaint that would support the finding that plaintiff is
under imminent danger of serious physical injury. Therefore, it would be futile to allow plaintiff
the opportunity to file a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis because the Court would
be unable to grant it. In addition, the complaint is unsigned. The Court will therefore dismiss
this action, without prejudice to plaintiff re-filing the complaint upon payment of the $400 filing
fee.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice to
plaintiff re-filing the complaint upon payment of the $400 filing fee.
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in
good faith.
An Order of Dismissal will be filed separately.
Dated this 4th day of August, 2017

___________________________________
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2