Opinion
3:22-CV-0996-X-BK
02-15-2023
ANTHONY FAILS, Plaintiff, v. IRS, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
BRANTLEY STARR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a recommendation in this case. [Doc. No. 13]. Plaintiff Anthony Fails, an inmate in the Florida Department of Correction (“FDOC”), filed suit in forma pauperis against the IRS and FDOC. The Magistrate Judge concluded that the “three-strike” provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), bars Fails from proceeding in this action in forma pauperis. Section 1915(g) provides that a prisoner may not bring a civil action in forma pauperis if that prisoner has, on three or more prior occasions while incarcerated, “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.” The Magistrate Judge found that Fails has accrued three strikes under § 1915(g) and that “his complaint is wholly devoid of any allegation of imminent danger of serious physical injury.”
Doc. No. 13 at 2.
Fails filed objections, arguing that § 1915(g) is inapplicable to the present action because it applies only to claims for monetary, not injunctive, relief, and he is only seeking injunctive relief. Fails's assertion that § 1915(g) does not bar claims for injunctive relief is baseless. Section 1915(g) applies to all “civil action[s]” and the statute makes no distinction between claims for monetary relief and claims for injunctive relief. Fails does not respond to the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that he accrued three strikes and failed to allege imminent danger of serious physical injury as required by § 1915(g). Nor does it provide any support for the assertion that § 1915(g) does not apply to this action. Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Fails's objection.
Doc. No. 17 at 2.
The District Court reviewed de novo those portions of the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations to which objection was made, and reviewed the remaining proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations for plain error. Finding none, the Court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. [Doc. No. 13]. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Fails' motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED