Hill v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction et al

Filing 16

ORDER denying 9 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; adopting Report and Recommendation 10 . Plaintiff's objections are overruled. Plaintiff is to pay the filing fee of $400 by 4/25/16. Signed by Judge Sandra S Beckwith on 3/23/16. (mb)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
David Tyrone Hill,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and
Corrections, et al,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No. 1:15-cv-762

ORDER
Before the Court are Plaintiff’s objections to the Magistrate Judge’s January 29,
2016 Report and Recommendation. In that Report (Doc. 10), the Magistrate Judge
recommended that Hill’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis be denied, and
he be ordered to pay the full filing fee within 30 days. 28 U.S.C. §1915(g), as amended
by the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, states that a prisoner who has brought
three or more actions in federal court that were dismissed because they were frivolous,
malicious, or failed to state a claim for relief, may not proceed in forma pauperis unless
the prisoner “is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” The Magistrate
Judge cited at least four cases Hill filed in the Northern District of Ohio between 2006
and 2015 which were all dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim upon initial
screening. In view of Hill’s previous “three strikes,” he is prohibited from proceeding in
forma pauperis in this case, unless he pleads facts demonstrating that he faces an
imminent danger of serious physical injury while incarcerated.
In his objections (Doc. 13), Hill refers to his attempt to appeal the Report and
Recommendation, which the Sixth Circuit has since dismissed. (See Doc. 15) He then

argues that the defendants acted under color of state law, as state actors, and he has
satisfied the requirements of a Section 1983 claim. He claims that he did not receive
the court’s order denying him in forma pauperis status, and contends that he will
experience the same conditions of confinement if he is denied that status. He relates
events surrounding his prison grievance, and alleges that “Defendants” confiscated his
legal material. He alleges that his grievances challenging “annoying and needlessly
harassing acts” by certain corrections officers have been rejected, and suggests that his
only recourse for relief is through the courts. Hill contends that he is being deprived of
photographs and pages of information, and asks the Court to order an investigation and
award him relief.
Nowhere in Hill’s objections does he plead any facts that might support a claim
or a reasonable inference that he is facing imminent danger of serious physical injury.
He is clearly unhappy with the outcomes of his prison grievances, but that is plainly
insufficient to show an error in the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions.
As required by 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(C) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
72(b), the Court has conducted a de novo review of the record in this case. Upon such
review, the Court finds that Hill’s objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report lack merit
and they are overruled. The Report is adopted in full. Hill’s motion for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis (Doc. 9) is denied. Hill must pay the full $400 case filing fee within 30
days of the date of entry of this Order, or by April 25, 2016, in order to continue
prosecuting this case. Plaintiff is hereby notified that his failure to pay the full $400 fee
within 30 days will result in the dismissal of his action.
The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(3), that an appeal of this
-2-

Order would not be taken in good faith, and denies Hill leave to appeal in forma
pauperis. See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1997).
SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 23, 2016

s/Sandra S. Beckwith
Sandra S. Beckwith, Senior Judge
United States District Court

-3-