From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Turner v. Stone

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Aug 21, 2019
Case No. 1:19-cv-623 (W.D. Mich. Aug. 21, 2019)

Opinion

Case No. 1:19-cv-623

08-21-2019

GREGORY S. TURNER, Plaintiff, v. UNKNOWN STONE et al., Defendants.


OPINION DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS - THREE STRIKES

This is a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner under 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 $400.00 civil action filing fee 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 $400.00 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 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 Turner v. Cellblock Publishing Co., No. 1:00-cv-704 (W.D. Mich. November 6, 2000); Turner v. Unknown Oh et al., Case No. 2:16-cv- 256 (W.D. Mich. July 10, 2017); Turner v. Unknown Gilbertson et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-65 (W.D. Mich. April 25, 2017). 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). The Sixth Circuit set forth the following general requirements for a claim of imminent danger:

In order to allege sufficiently imminent danger, we have held that "the threat or prison condition must be real and proximate and the danger of serious physical injury must exist at the time the complaint is filed." Rittner v. Kinder, 290 F. App'x 796, 797 (6th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). "Thus a prisoner's assertion that he or she faced danger in the past is insufficient to invoke the exception." Id. at 797-98; see also [Taylor v. First Med. Mgmt., 508 F. App'x 488, 492 (6th Cir. 2012)] ("Allegations of past dangers are insufficient to invoke the exception."); Percival v. Gerth, 443 F. App'x 944, 946 (6th Cir. 2011) ("Assertions of past danger will not satisfy the 'imminent danger' exception."); cf. [Pointer v. Wilkinson, 502 F.3d 369, 371 n.1 (6th Cir. 2007)] (implying that past danger is insufficient for the imminent-danger exception).

In addition to a temporal requirement, we have explained that the allegations must be sufficient to allow a court to draw reasonable inferences that the danger exists. To that end, "district courts may deny a prisoner leave to proceed pursuant to § 1915(g) when the prisoner's claims of imminent danger are conclusory or ridiculous, or are clearly baseless (i.e. are fantastic or delusional and rise to the level of irrational or wholly incredible)." Rittner, 290 F. App'x at 798 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Taylor, 508 F. App'x at 492 ("Allegations that are conclusory, ridiculous, or clearly baseless are also insufficient for purposes of the imminent-danger exception.").
Vandiver v. Prison Health Services, Inc., 727 F.3d 580, 585 (6th Cir. 2013). A prisoner's claim of imminent danger is subject to the same notice pleading requirement as that which applies to prisoner complaints. Id. Consequently, a prisoner must allege facts in the complaint from which the Court could reasonably conclude that the prisoner was under an existing danger at the time he filed his complaint, but the prisoner need not affirmatively prove those allegations. Id.

Plaintiff alleges that in January and February of 2019, he repeatedly asked to be placed in protective custody because of threats that he received from other prisoners, but that Defendants lied in response to Plaintiff's requests by asserting that he was never in any danger. Plaintiff also contends that the denial of his requests for protection was motivated by a desire to retaliate against him. Plaintiff states that Defendants Ratliff and Stone wrote a false misconduct ticket on him on January 21, 2019, for refusing to return to his cell. Plaintiff attaches a copy of the hearing record to his complaint, which shows that he was found guilty by Defendant Pallas and was placed on top lock for 10 days. In the hearing report, Defendant Pallas gives the reason for the guilty finding as:

The Misconduct Report reflects the prisoner was told he needed to go back to his cell when he told the Reporting Officer he wanted to lock up. The prisoner replied he was not locking down. The prisoner admits these facts. The prisoner had indicated he wanted protection from the prisoners in PC Unit and has asked to go to STEP program. No officers could corroborate the prisoner raising such issue. In pleading guilty today, the prisoner admitted the allegations and he did not assert any defense. It is found that the prisoner did not obey the direct order of the Reporting Officer to go to his cell and he is found guilty of the charged offense in accordance with his guilty plea.
(ECF No. 1-1, PageID.38.) Plaintiff claims that his injuries included time in administrative segregation, lack of exercise, only three showers a week, lack of usable razors, and having to sleep on an uncomfortable mattress, which caused hip pain. Plaintiff also suffered a head injury from falling off the mattress while in administrative segregation. Nothing in Plaintiff's complaint supports a finding that he was in imminent danger of serious bodily injury at the time he instituted this lawsuit.

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 entire civil action filing fee, which is $400.00. 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 does not pay the filing fee within the 28-day period, this case will be dismissed without prejudice, but Plaintiff will continue to be responsible for payment of the $400.00 filing fee. Dated: August 21, 2019

/s/ Robert J. Jonker

ROBERT J. JONKER

CHIEF 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

Turner v. Stone

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Aug 21, 2019
Case No. 1:19-cv-623 (W.D. Mich. Aug. 21, 2019)
Case details for

Turner v. Stone

Case Details

Full title:GREGORY S. TURNER, Plaintiff, v. UNKNOWN STONE et al., Defendants.

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

Date published: Aug 21, 2019

Citations

Case No. 1:19-cv-623 (W.D. Mich. Aug. 21, 2019)