Opinion
1:23-cv-310
01-02-2024
JAMES W. CLARK, JR., Plaintiff, v. TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF CORECTIONS, FRANK STRADA, GREGORY WILLIAMS, BRET COBBLE, ARAMARK, and JOHN DOE, Defendants.
Susan K. Lee Magistrate Judge.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
TRAVIS R. MCDONOUGH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Plaintiff, a self-represented prisoner housed in the Bledsoe County Correctional Complex, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 [Doc. 3] and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. 2].
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) contains a “three strikes” provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which provides:
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 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.
Plaintiff acknowledges that he has received three strikes [Doc. 2 p. 1]. And this Court previously found that Plaintiff filed at least three prisoner cases that were each dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Clark v. Tennessee Dep't of Corr., No. 3:08-cv-97 (E.D. Tenn. Mar. 26, 2008) (denying Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis because of the “three strikes” provision) (citing Clark v. Dedrick, No. 1:97-cv-152 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 20, 1997) (dismissing case as frivolous); Clark v. Noles, No. 1:98-cv-1194 (W.D. Tenn. Oct. 16, 1998) (dismissing case as frivolous); Clark v. Corr. Corp. of America, No. 1:03-cv-98 (M.D. Tenn. Sept. 10, 2003) (dismissing case for failure to state a claim). Therefore, under the “three strikes” provision of the PLRA, Plaintiff cannot file the instant suit-or any future suit in forma pauperis-unless he can demonstrate that he is “under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
To be eligible for the “imminent danger of serious physical injury” exception, Plaintiff “must plausibly allege such a danger.” See Gresham v. Meden, 938 F.3d 847, 849 (6th Cir. 2019) (citing Vandiver v. Prison Health Servs., Inc., 727 F.3d 580, 585 (6th Cir. 2013)). “A physical injury is ‘serious' for purposes of § 1915 if it has potentially dangerous consequences such as death or severe bodily harm”-“[m]inor harms or fleeting discomfort don't count.” Id. at 850.
In his complaint, Plaintiff does not allege that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury [See Doc. 3]. Therefore, Plaintiff may not proceed as a pauper in this case. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. 2] is DENIED pursuant to § 1915(g). Plaintiff is ORDERED to pay the entire $405.00 filing fee within fourteen (14) days of entry of this Order. See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 607 (6th Cir. 1997) (“Section 1915(b)(1) compels the payment of the [filing] fees at the moment the complaint. . . is filed.”). Plaintiff is NOTIFIED that failure to comply with this Order will result in the dismissal of this action without further notice.
SO ORDERED.