Williams v. Hayes et al
Filing
8
OPINION AND ORDER - Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. #6 ) is DENIED. Plaintiff is ORDERED to pay the full $402 filing fee ($350 filing fee, plus $52 administrative fee) required to commence this action WITHIN THIRTY DAYS. Plaintiff is advised that his failure to timely pay the full $402 fee within thirty days will result in the dismissal of this action. The Court CERTIFIES pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3) that an appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge Sarah D. Morrison on 11/21/2022. (agm)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
Case: 2:22-cv-04023-SDM-CMV Doc #: 8 Filed: 11/21/22 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: 43
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
JAMES WILLIAMS, IV,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action 2:22-cv-4023
Judge Sarah D. Morrison
Magistrate Judge Chelsey M.
Vascura
DAVID HAYES, et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff, James Williams, IV, an Ohio state inmate proceeding without the
assistance of counsel, brings this action against state prosecutors, his appointed
public defender, a state-court judge, and John and Jane Doe Defendants. This
matter is before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to
Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (See Praecipe, ECF No. 6, noting Plaintiff’s request that
his materials supporting pauper status submitted in other cases be applied to this
case.) For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis is DENIED.
Congress has restricted a prisoner’s right to proceed in forma pauperis. In
accordance with Section 804(d) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) of
1995, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321, amending 28 U.S.C. § 1915:
In 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
Case: 2:22-cv-04023-SDM-CMV Doc #: 8 Filed: 11/21/22 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: 44
more prior 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).
This Court has determined that Plaintiff is a “three striker” as contemplated
in § 1915(g) due to four lawsuits he filed that have been dismissed as frivolous or for
failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). See Williams v. Liberty
Mutual Insurance, et al., No. 2:22-3364 (S.D. Ohio, October 28, 2022); Williams v.
Hayes, et al., No. 2:22-cv-3383 (S.D. Ohio, October 26, 2022); Williams v. Wright
Patterson Air Force Base, No. 2:22-cv-3440 (S.D. Ohio, October 26, 2022), and
Williams v. Buckwalter, et al., 3:22-cv-288 (S.D. Ohio, October 26, 2022).
In view of Plaintiff’s multiple “strikes,” he may not proceed in forma pauperis
unless he falls within the statutory exception set forth in § 1915(g), which applies to
prisoners who are “under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” “[T]he
imminent danger exception is essentially a pleading requirement subject to the
ordinary principles of notice pleading.” Vandiver v. Prison Health Servs., Inc., 727
F.3d 580, 585 (6th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). To
satisfy this pleading standard, “[a] plaintiff must . . . allege[ ] facts from which a
court, informed by its judicial experience and common sense, could draw the
reasonable inference that he was under an existing danger at the time he filed his
complaint.” Id. (citing Taylor v. First Med. Mgmt., 508 F. App’x 488, 492 (6th Cir.
2012)) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Imminent danger means
that “the threat or prison condition must be real and proximate and the danger of
2
Case: 2:22-cv-04023-SDM-CMV Doc #: 8 Filed: 11/21/22 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: 45
serious physical injury . . . .” Vandiver, 727 F.3d at 585 (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted).
With respect to Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendants, the Court is unable
to discern any facts from either Plaintiff’s Complaint or his other filings that
plausibly allege that he meets the statutory exception set forth in § 1915(g). For
these reasons, the Court orders as follows:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 6)
is DENIED.
2. Plaintiff is ORDERED to pay the full $402 filing fee ($350 filing fee,
plus $52 administrative fee) required to commence this action
WITHIN THIRTY DAYS. Plaintiff is advised that his failure to
timely pay the full $402 fee within thirty days will result in the
dismissal of this action.
3. The Court CERTIFIES pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an
appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Sarah D. Morrison
SARAH D. MORRISON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
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?