United States District Court, N.D. Florida, Tallahassee Division
BRIAN M. CASEY, Plaintiff,
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT; DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES; and DIRECTOR OF F.B.I. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES; Defendants.
THAI CANNON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
a prisoner proceeding pro se, filed an amended
complaint (ECF Doc. 7) asserting claims under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. The matter is before the Court on that
complaint, as well as Plaintiff's second motion to
proceed in forma pauperis (ECF Doc. 8). Upon review
of Plaintiff's litigation history, the Court has
discovered Plaintiff is a “three-striker;” this
action therefore should be dismissed without prejudice
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a provision of the in forma
[i]n 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.
prisoner who is no longer entitled to proceed in forma
pauperis must pay the filing fee at the time he
initiates his lawsuit, and his failure to do so warrants
dismissal of his case without prejudice. Dupree v.
Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234, 1236 (11th Cir. 2002)
(holding that “the proper procedure is for the district
court to dismiss the complaint without prejudice when it
denies the prisoner leave to proceed in forma
pauperis pursuant to the provisions of §
1915(g)” because the prisoner “must pay the
filing fee at the time he initiates the suit”);
Vanderberg v. Donaldson, 259 F.3d 1321, 1324
(11th Cir. 2001) (stating that after three (3)
meritless suits, a prisoner must pay the full filing fee at
the time he initiates suit). The only exception is
if the prisoner alleges he is “under imminent danger of
serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g);
Brown v. Johnson, 387 F.3d 1344 (11th
is subject to the three-strikes bar of § 1915(g), having
had six (6) prior civil actions dismissed on
the grounds they were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a
claim or pursuant to § 1915(g). The Court takes judicial
notice of the following cases: Casey v. Crews, No.
3:13cv92-RV-CJK (N.D. Fla.) (dismissed March 11, 2013, as
malicious for Plaintiff's abuse of the judicial process
in failing to disclose full litigation history); Casey v.
Crews, et al., No. 3:13cv461-LC-CJK (N.D. Fla.)
(dismissed October 22, 2013, as malicious for Plaintiff's
abuse of the judicial process in failing to disclose full
litigation history); Casey v. GEO Corporation, et
al., No. 4:14cv151-MW-CAS (N.D. Fla.) (dismissed April
7, 2014, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)); Casey v.
Crews, et al., No. 5:14cv190-WS-GRJ (N.D. Fla.)
(dismissed September 25, 2014, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(g)); Casey v. Corizon Health Services, et al.,
No. 5:14cv275-RS-EMT (N.D. Fla.) (dismissed December 2, 2014,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)); Casey v. Bondi, et
al., No. 4:17cv160-MW-CAS (N.D. Fla.) (dismissed May 16,
2017, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)). The undersigned
has confirmed Plaintiff in the instant case is the same as
the plaintiff in the cases cited above because he has the
same inmate number, 139647.
Plaintiff may not litigate this case in forma
pauperis unless he demonstrates he is “under
imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g), Brown, supra. Plaintiff makes no
such allegations. Because Plaintiff did not pay the filing
fee at the time he initiated this action, and because it
plainly appears he is not entitled to proceed in forma
pauperis, this case should be dismissed under 28 U.S.C.
prior to filing this case, Plaintiff was repeatedly advised
by this Court that he was subject to the “three
strikes” rule and thus cannot proceed in forma
pauperis. See Casey v. Bondi, et al., No.
4:17cv160-MW-CAS (N.D. Fla.) (stating “[j]udicial
notice is taken . . . that Plaintiff has previously been
denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis based on the fact
that Plaintiff has more than three “strikes”
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)”). The complaint form to
be used by prisoners filing a civil rights complaint in this
district requires prisoners to identify prior lawsuits they
have filed. The purpose of that requirement is to determine
whether the prisoner is a three-striker. Although Plaintiff
stated in his complaint that “I don't have a record
of the cases because prison officials lost all my legal
property, ” he should have known he could not proceed
in forma pauperis and further should have known,
based on the prior dismissals, that it is his obligation to
disclose his litigation history. Hence, not only should
Plaintiff's case be dismissed under § 1915(g), but
the undersigned also finds that Plaintiff's suit was
it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:
1. That Plaintiff's second motion to proceed in forma
pauperis (ECF Doc. 8) be DENIED.
2. That the remaining pending motions (ECF Docs. 4, 5) be
DENIED as moot.
3. That this action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g).
4. That the clerk be directed to close the file.