Hinton v. Bridges et al

Filing 6

ORDER denying 2 Affidavit - 1983 Application IFP; dismissing 1 Complaint; Plaintiff is hereby ordered to show cause within 20 days of this order as to why this court should not impose a pre-filing review of all actions submitted to this court for filing. Signed by Chief Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr on 3/22/2013. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(eef)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:13-cv-119-RJC
CHARLES EVERETTE HINTON,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
FORREST D. BRIDGES, et al.
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on a review of Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed
Without Prepayment of Fees or Costs, and on an initial review of Plaintiff’s Complaint, filed
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, (Doc. No. 1). 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915; 1915A.
The Prisoner Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) makes clear that
[i]n no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil
action or proceeding under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more 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).
Plaintiff is a frequent filer of pro se lawsuits in this district, having already filed 19 civil
law suits. By Order dated March 24, 2009, this Court determined that Plaintiff is a three striker.
See (Hinton v. Curran, 3:09-cv-110, Doc. No. 2). As in Plaintiff’s previous actions filed in this
Court, the Complaint here alleges vague conspiracies and constitutional violations by various
individuals and entities. As this Court has found in Plaintiff’s previous lawsuits with similar
allegations, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he is under imminent danger of serious physical

injury. Thus, the Complaint must be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(g).
Furthermore, in an Order dated July 27, 2012, this Court, the Honorable Patrick Michael
Duffy, Senior District Judge, District of South Carolina, sitting by designation, warned Plaintiff
that any more frivolous filings would result in the imposition of a pre-filing review system, with
a pre-filing injunction to follow.

See Hinton v. Conrad, 3:12-cv-367-PMD, (Doc. No. 9).

Plaintiff was further warned that the Court would implement a pre-filing review system with the
next frivolous filing by Plaintiff.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
(1)

Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(g);

(2)

Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is DENIED.

(3)

Plaintiff is hereby ordered to show cause within 20 days of this Order as to why
this Court should not impose a pre-filing review of all actions submitted to this
Court for filing by Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s memorandum shall not exceed 20 pages.
If Plaintiff does not respond to this show cause Order within 20 days, the Court
will enter an Order immediately implementing a pre-filing review of all actions by
Plaintiff heretofore submitted to this Court for filing.

Signed: March 22, 2013