Perez v. Gooden
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 3 Report and Recommendations and ORDERING that 2 motion to proceed forma pauperis is DENIED and FURTHER ORDERED that action is DISMISSED with prejudice as to the refiling of another in forma pauperis lawsuit raising the same claims and FURTHER ORDERED that if pla pay the full filing fee within 15 days after final jgm is entered, he shall be allowed to proceed in this lawsuit. Signed by Judge Michael H. Schneider on 6/10/2013. (sm, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
JULIO PEREZ JR. #852734
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:13cv36
MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
AND ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT
The Plaintiff Julio Perez Jr., proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C.
§1983 complaining of alleged violations of his constitutional rights. This Court ordered that the case
be referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and (3) and the
Amended Order for the Adoption of Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to United States
The sole named defendant is a prison official named Frederick Gooden.
Perez states he has hypertension and has experienced problems with the distribution of his
medication, causing his blood pressure to fluctuate. He added he has been having “on-going
problems with prison officials but has not lodged a complaint because of the Court previously
sanctioning him.” Perez asks to be allowed to amend his complaint in some unspecified way and
seeks injunctive relief against Gooden and unnamed “agents” to prevent them from retaliating
against him or denying him access to medical care and treatment .
After review of the pleadings, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the
lawsuit be dismissed as barred by 28 U.S.C. §1915(g), which provides as follows:
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 three or 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 ground 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.
Court records show the Plaintiff Julio Perez has filed at least three lawsuits or appeals which
have been dismissed, in whole or in part, as frivolous or for failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted. See Perez v. Thompson, No. 6:06cv327 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 1, 2006) (no appeal taken);
Perez v. Delarosa, No. 5:06cv185 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 10, 2007) (no appeal taken); Perez v. Hudson, No.
5:08cv161 (E.D. Tex.July 1, 2009) (no appeal taken). He has also had one lawsuit previously
dismissed under §1915(g). Perez v. Dunbar, et al., civil action no. 5:11cv113 (E.D.Tex., dismissed
July 6, 2011, no appeal taken). Hence, Perez cannot proceed in forma pauperis unless he shows he
is under serious danger of imminent physical injury.
In this regard, the Magistrate Judge determined that Perez’s vague and conclusory assertions
that his life is in danger were insufficient to show “imminent danger of serious physical injury,” as
required by the statute. See McClure v. Langley, civil action no. 5:11cv208, 2012 WL 1900012
(E.D.Tex., May 24, 2012, no appeal taken) (mere recitation of phrase “imminent danger” does not
invoke the exception to §1915(g)); Hyder v. Obama, civil action no. 5:11cv26, 2011 WL 1113496
(E.D.Tex., March 11, 2011, Report adopted at 2011 WL 1100126 (E.D.Tex., March 24, 2011, no
appeal taken) (general allegations not grounded in specific facts indicating serious physical injury
is imminent are not sufficient to invoke the exception to §1915(g)). The Magistrate Judge thus
recommended that Perez’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis be denied and the
lawsuit be dismissed.
Perez filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report on May 21, 2013. In his objections,
Perez states he wanted to amend his complaint “to clarify and name the defendants.” He asserts that
on April 9, 2013, he was denied a blood pressure check by a person named Rushing, a nurse named
Pickens, and a nurse practitioner named Brocker. On April 15, he was denied evening blood
pressure medication by a nurse named Anderson, and the next day he was denied evening blood
pressure medication by nurse named Archie. On March 22, he was denied evening blood pressure
medication by a nurse named Jones. Grievances on all of these incidents are pending. On May 12,
2013, he was denied evening blood pressure medication by a patient care assistant named Hayden
but he has not decided whether to grieve this incident or not.
Perez argues he meets the §1915(g) exception because “hypertension is a deadly disease if
not properly treated.” He states his blood pressure fluctuates and noted that another inmate died in
February as a result of “medical and security indifference and negligence.”
A number of courts have rejected assertions that high blood pressure is itself sufficient to
show that a prisoner is in imminent danger of serious physical injury within the meaning of
§1915(g). Martin v. Shelton, 319 F.3d 1048, 1050 (8th Cir. 2003) (claim that defendants were trying
to kill plaintiff by forcing him to work in extreme weather conditions despite his high blood pressure
was insufficient to invoke the exception to §1915(g)); Mack v. Bell, civil action no. 6:12cv852, 2012
WL 7159823 (E.D.Tex., December 17, 2012, Report adopted at 2013 WL 618219 (E.D.Tex.,
February 19, 2013, no appeal taken) (claim that inmate was in imminent danger because of high
blood pressure did not invoke the exception to §1915(g)); Caradine/Assabur v. Hubbard, civil action
no. 5:11cv281, 2011 WL 6937196 (E.D.Ark., December 7, 2011, Report adopted at 2012 WL
10308, E.D.Ark., January 3, 2012, no appeal taken) (complaint that prisoner suffers from colon
cancer, sugar diabetes, hypertension, high blood pressure, dislocated deformities in his foot, and
tuberculosis did not support a finding that the prisoner was in imminent danger of serious harm).
In this case, Perez asserts in his objections that he was denied a blood pressure check on one
occasion and he was denied evening blood pressure medication four times over a period of 52 days.
These assertions do not show he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury so as to trigger the
exception to §1915(g). See also Heimermann v. Litscher, 337 F.3d 781, 782 (7th Cir. 2003) (the
statutory exception refers to “genuine emergencies” where “time is pressing.”) Perez’s objections
are without merit.
The Court has conducted a careful de novo review of the pleadings in this case, including the
Report of the Magistrate Judge and the Plaintiff’s objections thereto. Upon such de novo review,
the Court has concluded that the Report of the Magistrate Judge is correct and the Plaintiff’s
objections are without merit. It is accordingly
ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s objections are overruled and the Report of the Magistrate
Judge (docket no. 3) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further
ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (docket no.
2) is hereby DENIED. It is further
ORDERED that the above-styled civil action be and hereby is DISMISSED with prejudice
as to the refiling of another in forma pauperis lawsuit raising the same claims as herein presented,
but without prejudice to the refiling of this lawsuit without seeking in forma pauperis status and
upon payment of the statutory filing fee. It is further
ORDERED that should the Plaintiff pay the full filing fee within 15 days after the date of
entry of final judgment in this case, he shall be allowed to proceed in the lawsuit as through the full
fee had been paid from the outset. Finally, it is
ORDERED that any and all motions which may be pending in this action are hereby
It is SO ORDERED.
SIGNED this 10th day of June, 2013.
MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER
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?