From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Taylor v. United States

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION
Apr 30, 2013
Case No. 2:13-cv-128 (W.D. Mich. Apr. 30, 2013)

Opinion

Case No. 2:13-cv-128

04-30-2013

RICHMOND BROWN TAYLOR, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants.


Honorable Robert Holmes Bell


OPINION DENYING LEAVE

TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS - THREE STRIKES

Plaintiff Richard Brown Taylor, a prisoner incarcerated at Kinross Correctional Facility, filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 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 $350.00 civil action filing fee within twenty-eight (28) days of this opinion and accompanying order, and if Plaintiff fails to do so, the Court will order that his action be dismissed without prejudice. Even if the case is dismissed, Plaintiff will be responsible for payment of the $350.00 filing fee in accordance with In re Alea, 286 F.3d 378, 380-81 (6th Cir. 2002).

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 put into place 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); accord Pointer v. Wilkinson, 502 F.3d 369, 377 (6th Cir. 2007) (citing Wilson, 148 F.3d at 604-06); Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1178-82 (9th Cir. 1999); Rivera v. Allin, 144 F.3d 719, 723-26 (11th Cir. 1998); Carson v. Johnson, 112 F.3d 818, 821-22 (5th Cir. 1997).

Plaintiff has been an active litigant in the federal courts in Michigan. In more than three of Plaintiff's lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, the Court entered dismissals on the grounds that the cases were frivolous and / or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See, e.g.; Taylor v. Ku Klux Klan, et al., Case No. 06-11623 (E.D. Mich., April 7, 2006); Taylor v. Roberts, et al., Case No. 06-10846 (E.D. Mich., Mar. 20, 2006); Taylor v. Yates, Case No. 05-74696 (E.D. Mich., Feb. 8, 2006); Taylor v. Theodore Levin Courthouse, et al., Case No. 06-10073 (E.D. Mich., Feb. 7, 2006).

In light of the foregoing, § 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 entire civil action filing fee, which is $350.00. When Plaintiff pays his filing fee, the Court will screen his complaint as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c). If Plaintiff fails to pay the filing fee within the 28-day period, his case will be dismissed without prejudice, but he will continue to be responsible for payment of the $350.00 filing fee.

__________________________

ROBERT HOLMES BELL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
SEND REMITTANCES TO THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS:
Clerk, U.S. District Court
399 Federal Building
110 Michigan Street, NW
Grand Rapids, MI 49503

All checks or other forms of payment shall be payable to "Clerk, U.S. District Court."


Summaries of

Taylor v. United States

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION
Apr 30, 2013
Case No. 2:13-cv-128 (W.D. Mich. Apr. 30, 2013)
Case details for

Taylor v. United States

Case Details

Full title:RICHMOND BROWN TAYLOR, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.…

Court:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION

Date published: Apr 30, 2013

Citations

Case No. 2:13-cv-128 (W.D. Mich. Apr. 30, 2013)

Citing Cases

Taylor v. Mich. Dep't of Corr. Mental Health Servs.

In still another case, a judge notified Plaintiff that he was precluded from proceeding in forma pauperis…

Taylor v. Mich. Dep't of Corr. Mental Health Servs.

In still another case, a judge notified Plaintiff that he was precluded from proceeding in forma pauperis…