Seals v. Griffith
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis under 42:1983 (prisoner) filed by Plaintiff Solomon Seals. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 2) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. An Order of Dismissal will be filed separately. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 10/5/17. (CSG)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the motion of Missouri inmate Solomon Seals for
leave to commence this civil action, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, without prepayment
of the required filing fee. The motion will be denied, and this case will be dismissed without
Plaintiff, a prisoner and a frequent filer of 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. It
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
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.
Review of this Court’s files reveals that plaintiff has accumulated more than three strikes.
Seales v. Groose, et al., Case No. 2:95-cv-4187-SOW (W.D. Mo. Jul. 17, 1995); Seales v.
Moorish Science Temple, Case No. 2:95-cv-4246-SOW (W.D. Mo. Sept. 14, 1995); Seales v.
Groose, et al., Case No. 2:96-cv-4053-FJG (W.D. Mo. Apr. 22, 1996); Seales v. Groose, et al.,
Case No. 2:96-cv-4232-NKL (W.D. Mo. Oct. 8, 1996); Seals v. Kemna, Case No. 5:98-cv-6153HFS (W.D. Mo. Nov. 30, 1998); Seales v. Kemna, Case No. 5:98-cv-6157-HFS (W.D. Mo. Nov.
Therefore, he may proceed in forma pauperis in this action only if he “is under
imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
The instant complaint is a long, nonsensical narrative. For example, plaintiff refers to
himself as “King, Solomon Seals-Supalus The Adept Chamber of the Moorish Science Temple
of America, 3rd Heaven.” (Docket No. 1 at 1). He alleges he is “the only ‘citizen’ in the whole
world,” the “only true & Divine Warden,” the only Magistrate Judge and attorney, and is the
“real King.” (Id. at Docket No. 1 at 5, 13). He asks this Court to give him a “Pardon,” monetary
damages in the amount of “$700,707,700 Zillion Dollars & all wealth, gold, silver & commerce”
so that he may continue to be “the only king in the world,” and to incarcerate the defendant for
2,000 years. (Id. at 13). None of these allegations amount to imminent danger of serious
physical injury. The Court will therefore deny the instant motion, and dismiss this action
without prejudice to the filing of a fully paid complaint.
Even if plaintiff were not subject to § 1915(g), the complaint would be subject to
dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) because it is factually frivolous. An action is
factually frivolous if the facts alleged are “clearly baseless.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25,
Alleged facts are clearly baseless if they are “fanciful,” “delusional,” or
“fantastic.” Id. In this case, the allegations in the complaint are factually frivolous as defined in
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (Docket No. 2) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice.
An Order of Dismissal will be filed separately.
Dated this 5th day of October, 2017.
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
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?