Opinion
Case No. CV415-085
08-12-2015
GRADY R. WILLIAMS, JR, Plaintiff, v. OGEECHEE JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF EFFINGHAM COUNTY; ET AL., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Grady R. Williams, Jr, who is proceeding in forma pauperis ("IFP"), has filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint seeking damages from virtually everyone -- even the court itself -- involved in a state criminal prosecution against him. Doc. 1. His complaint must be dismissed because he has struck out under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and is thus prohibited from proceeding IFP without showing that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury.
Plaintiffs are generally required to pay a filing fee in order to institute a civil action in a federal district court. 28 U.S.C. § 1914. Indigent prisoners may avoid prepayment of the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. In order to proceed IFP, however, they must surmount § 1915(g), which states:
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.28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). A prisoner barred from proceeding IFP due to the three strikes provision in § 1915(g) must pay the complete $350 filing fee when he initiates suit. Vanderberg v. Donaldson, 259 F.3d 1321, 1324 (11th Cir. 2001). Therefore, the proper procedure for a district court faced with a prisoner who seeks IFP status but is barred by the three strikes provision is to dismiss the complaint without prejudice. Dupree v. Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234, 1236 (11th Cir. 2002).
This Court's own docket and PACER reveal five 1915(g) strikes: Williams v. Owens, CV613-006, doc. 50 (S.D. Ga. Nov. 27, 2013) (dismissal of § 1983 case for failing to exhaust prison remedies); Williams v. Ga. Dep't. of Corr., CV612-110, doc. 15 (S.D. Ga. Jan. 30, 2013) (dismissal of § 1983 case for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted); Williams v. Owens, CV513-254, doc. 40 (M.D. Ga. Sept. 15, 2014) (dismissal of § 1983 case for failing to exhaust prison remedies), appeal dismissed for failure to prosecute, doc. 46 (M.D. Ga. Oct. 30, 2014); and Williams v. Owens, CV513-227, doc. 8 (M.D. Ga. Aug. 20, 2013) (§ 1983 case dismissal for failing to comply with procedural requirements). See generally Boney v. Hickey, 2014 WL 4103918 at * 4-5 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 15, 2014) (collecting examples of what constitutes a § 1915(g) strike, including lost appeals).
Williams, who is a veteran litigator (the Court has cited only a portion of his cases), otherwise fails to present specific allegations of present imminent danger that may result in serious physical harm. Skillern v. Jackson, 2006 WL 1687752 at *2 (S.D. Ga. June 14, 2006) (citing Brown v. Johnson, 387 F.3d 1344, 1349 (11th Cir. 2004)). Because he is barred by § 1915(g), Grady R. Williams' IFP motion (doc. 2) is DENIED and his complaint should be DISMISSED.
The Court erred in provisionally granting plaintiff's IFP motion. Doc. 3. He did not use a court-supplied form § 1983 complaint that otherwise asks him about prior case filings. Nor did he volunteer them. The Court's additional research uncovered his three-strike status. Hence, the Court VACATES its order (doc. 3) granting Williams' motion to proceed IFP and substitutes this Report and Recommendation in its place. --------
SO REPORTED AND RECOMMENDED this 12th day of August, 2015.
/s/ _________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA