From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. Writeaprisoner.com, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Jan 21, 2021
Case No. 1:20-cv-1201 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 21, 2021)

Opinion

Case No. 1:20-cv-1201

01-21-2021

DERRICK LEE SMITH, Plaintiff, v. WRITEAPRISONER.COM, INC. et al., Defendants.


OPINION DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS - THREE STRIKES

This is a civil action brought by a state prisoner. Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Additionally, Plaintiff has paid $400.00 toward the filing fee. However, effective December 1, 2020, the fees for filing a civil action total $402.00. Further, because Plaintiff has filed at least three lawsuits that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious or for failure to state a claim, he is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The Court will order Plaintiff to pay the remaining $2.00 of the $402.00 civil action filing fees applicable to those not permitted to proceed in forma pauperis. This fee must be paid within twenty-eight (28) days of this opinion and accompanying order. If Plaintiff fails to pay the fee, the Court will order that this case be dismissed without prejudice. Even if the case is dismissed, Plaintiff must pay the remaining $2.00 filing fees in accordance with In re Alea, 286 F.3d 378, 380-81 (6th Cir. 2002).

The filing fee for a civil action is $350.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The Clerk is also directed to collect a miscellaneous administrative fee of $52.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(b); https://www.uscourts.gov/services-fonms/fees/district-court-miscellaneous-fee-schedule. The miscellaneous administrative fee, however, "does not apply to applications for a writ of habeas corpus or to persons granted in forma pauperis status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915." Id. --------

Discussion

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996), which was enacted on April 26, 1996, amended the procedural rules governing a prisoner's request for the privilege of proceeding in forma pauperis. As the Sixth Circuit has stated, the PLRA was "aimed at the skyrocketing numbers of claims filed by prisoners-many of which are meritless-and the corresponding burden those filings have placed on the federal courts." Hampton v. Hobbs, 106 F.3d 1281, 1286 (6th Cir. 1997). For that reason, Congress created economic incentives to prompt a prisoner to "stop and think" before filing a complaint. Id. For example, a prisoner is liable for the civil action filing fee, and if the prisoner qualifies to proceed in forma pauperis, the prisoner may pay the fee through partial payments as outlined in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). The constitutionality of the fee requirements of the PLRA has been upheld by the Sixth Circuit. Id. at 1288.

In addition, another provision reinforces the "stop and think" aspect of the PLRA by preventing a prisoner from proceeding in forma pauperis when the prisoner repeatedly files meritless lawsuits. Known as the "three-strikes" rule, the provision states:

In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding under [the section governing proceedings in forma pauperis] 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.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The statutory restriction "[i]n no event," found in § 1915(g), is express and unequivocal. The statute does allow an exception for a prisoner who is "under imminent danger of serious physical injury." The Sixth Circuit has upheld the constitutionality of the three-strikes rule against arguments that it violates equal protection, the right of access to the courts, and due process, and that it constitutes a bill of attainder and is ex post facto legislation. Wilson v. Yaklich, 148 F.3d 596, 604-06 (6th Cir. 1998).

Plaintiff has been an active litigant in the federal courts in Michigan. In more than three of Plaintiff's lawsuits, the Court entered dismissals on the grounds that the cases were frivolous, malicious, and/or failed to state a claim. See Smith v. Washington, No. 2:18-cv-10736 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 5, 2018); Smith v. Hall, No. 1:18-cv-277 (W.D. Mich. Apr. 3, 2018); Smith v. Wayne Cnty. Prosecutor's Off., No. 2:09-cv-12287 (E.D. Mich. June 25, 2009). Additionally, Plaintiff has previously been denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis under the three-strikes provision. See Smith v. Penman, No. 1:18-cv-1212 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 13, 2019). All of Plaintiff's dismissals were entered after enactment of the PLRA on April 26, 1996.

Moreover, Plaintiff's allegations do not fall within the "imminent danger" exception to the three-strikes rule. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff does not allege facts showing that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury.

Therefore, § 1915(g) prohibits Plaintiff from proceeding in forma pauperis in this action. Plaintiff has twenty-eight (28) days from the date of entry of this order to pay the remainder of his $402.00 civil action filing fees, which is $2.00. If Plaintiff does not pay the remainder of the filing fees within the 28-day period, this case will be dismissed without prejudice, but Plaintiff will continue to be responsible for remaining $2.00 payment of the $402.00 filing fees. Dated: January 21, 2021

/s/ Paul L. Maloney

Paul L. Maloney

United States District Judge SEND REMITTANCES TO THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS : Clerk, U.S. District Court
399 Federal Bldg.
110 Michigan St., N.W.
Grand Rapids, MI 49503 All checks or other forms of payment shall be payable to "Clerk, U.S. District Court."


Summaries of

Smith v. Writeaprisoner.com, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Jan 21, 2021
Case No. 1:20-cv-1201 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 21, 2021)
Case details for

Smith v. Writeaprisoner.com, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:DERRICK LEE SMITH, Plaintiff, v. WRITEAPRISONER.COM, INC. et al.…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Date published: Jan 21, 2021

Citations

Case No. 1:20-cv-1201 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 21, 2021)

Citing Cases

Smith v. Jones

Moreover, should Plaintiff appeal this decision, the Court will assess the $505.00 appellate filing fee,…

Cardello-Smith v. Google LLC

In addition, the plaintiff has been denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the…