Hale v. State of Tennessee et al

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Therefore, Plaintiff's motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are DENIED [Docs. 2, 6]. In order to file this action, Plaintiff must pay the entire $400.00 filing fee within thirty (30) days fr om the date of this order. If Plaintiff fails to timely pay the filing fee, this case will be DISMISSED and, despite the dismissal of the case, he will be assessed the filing fee. See Memorandum and Order for details. Signed by District Judge J Ronnie Greer on 07/24/2017. (Copy of Memorandum and Order mailed to Thomas Daniel Eugene Hale.) (CAT)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT CHATTANOOGA

THOMAS DANIEL EUGENE HALE,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF TENNESSEE, UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA, MELVIN
TIRY, and DARREN L. SETTLES,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:16-CV-423-JRG-SKL

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
The Court has before it a pro se state prisoner’s civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. §
1983 [Doc. 1] and two motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Docs. 2, 6]. Pursuant to
the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 (“PLRA”), codified in scattered sections of Titles 11,
18, 28, and 42 of the United States Code, a prisoner cannot bring a new civil action or appeal a
judgment in a civil action in forma pauperis if he has, three or more times in the past, while
incarcerated, brought a civil action or appeal in federal court that was dismissed because it was
frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(g). This is known as “the three strike rule.” The only exception is if the prisoner is in
“imminent danger of serious physical injury.” See id. § 1915(g).
While incarcerated, Plaintiff has had at least three prior civil rights actions dismissed as
frivolous or for failure to state a claim. See Hale v. Long, No. 1:16-CV-1109 (W.D. Tenn. June
26, 2007) (order dismissing case for failure to state a claim); Hale v. Long, No. 1:95-CV-111
(M.D. Tenn. May 2, 1996) (order dismissing case as frivolous); Hale v. Williams, No. 1:94-CV-

145 (M.D. Tenn. Sept. 20, 1994) (order dismissing case as frivolous); Hale v. Rhea, No. 3:94CV-812 (M.D. Tenn. Sept. 19, 1994) (order dismissing case as frivolous); Hale v. Boyd, No.
1:94-CV-141 (M.D. Tenn. Sept. 14, 1994) (order dismissing case as frivolous); see also Hale v.
Cook, No. 1:16-CV-106 (E.D. Tenn. May 2, 2016) (order listing Plaintiff’s § 1915(g) cases,
denying him in forma pauperis status, and directing him to pay the full filing fee); Hale v. Tenn.,
No. 1:16-CV-474 (E.D. Tenn. March 14, 2017) (same); Hale v. Steele, No. 3:12-CV-476 (M.D.
Tenn. May 18, 2012) (same); Hale v. NWCX, No. 1:11-CV-1083 (W.D. Tenn. Dec. 28, 2011)
(same).
Though Plaintiff’s complaint is practically indecipherable, to the extent possible, the
Court has reviewed it. As his complete statement of claims, Plaintiff alleges:
“False imprisonment: Special housing unit for assisted living and
deliberately indiffered [sic] and estoppel of private parcels.
Racketeering Influences: Corrupt organizations Wrongful Death
Since 1997 and still being 2016 even indirectly from system we
went through even as I have been done and no token of appraisal
and showing [sic] myself you all have done. Bribery from or on
contruct [sic] signed w/ grievances filed in Nov. 28, 2014. On
settlement.”
[Doc. 1 at 4].
Clearly, even in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, none of these contentions could
qualify for § 1915(g)’s “serious physical injury” exception. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motions for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis are DENIED [Docs. 2, 6]. In order to file this action,
Plaintiff must pay the entire $400.00 filing fee within thirty (30) days from the date of this
order. If Plaintiff fails to timely pay the filing fee, this case will be DISMISSED and, despite
the dismissal of the case, he will be assessed the filing fee. See, In re Alea, 286 F.3d 378, 381
(6th Cir. 2002) (noting that a prisoner’s obligation to the filing fee arises when the complaint is
delivered to the district court clerk); id. at 382 (explaining that “[t]he subsequent dismissal of the
2

action under § 1915(g) for failure to pay the fee does not negate or nullify the litigant’s
continuing obligation to pay the fee in full”).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ENTER:

s/J. RONNIE GREER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3