Hardy #252393 v. Michigan Department of Corrections et al, No. 1:2007cv00607 - Document 3 (W.D. Mich. 2007)
Court Description: OPINION ; signed by Chief Judge Robert Holmes Bell (Chief Judge Robert Holmes Bell, kad)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Hardy #252393 v. Michigan Department of Corrections et al Case 1:07-cv-00607-RHB-JGS Doc. 3 Document 3 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION GREGORY HARDY, Plaintiff, Case No. 1:07-cv-607 v. Honorable Robert Holmes Bell MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al., Defendants. ____________________________________/ OPINION DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS - THREE STRIKES Plaintiff, a prisoner incarcerated at Ionia Maximum 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 which were dismissed as frivolous, 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 thirty 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 F3d 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 Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:07-cv-00607-RHB-JGS Document 3 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 2 of 5 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 Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1178-82 (9th Cir. 1999); -2- Case 1:07-cv-00607-RHB-JGS Document 3 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 3 of 5 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, the Court entered dismissals on the grounds of failure to state a claim. See Hardy v. Theut, No. 2:04-cv-263 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 15, 2004); Hardy v. Mich. Parole Bd., No. 2:04-cv-246 (W.D. Mich. Nov. 8, 2004); Hardy v. Kedzierzawski, No. 2:04-cv-207 (W.D. Mich. Nov. 1, 2004); Hardy v. Southwestern Michigan Assessment Services, No. 1:98-cv-786 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 1, 1998). Plaintiff s allegations that he was assaulted by prison guards do not fall within the exception for an inmate under imminent danger of serious physical injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Congress did not define imminent danger in the PLRA, but it is significant that Congress chose to use the word imminent, a word that conveys the idea of immediacy. Imminent is Near at hand . . . impending; on the point of happening; threatening, menacing, perilous. Something which is threatening to happen at once, something close at hand, something to happen upon the instant . . . and on the point of happening. BLACK S LAW DICTIONARY , 514-15 (6th ed. 1991). Imminent is also defined as ready to take place, near at hand, impending, hanging threateningly over one s head, menacingly near. WEBSTER S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY , 1130 (1976). Imminent danger is such an appearance of threatened and impending injury as would put a reasonable and prudent man to his instant defense. BLACK S LAW DICTIONARY , 515 (6th ed. 1991). This does not however, mean that a district court must accept any and all allegations of injury as sufficient to forestall application of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). A district court has the discretion to discredit factual claims of imminent danger that are clearly baseless, i.e., allegations -3- Case 1:07-cv-00607-RHB-JGS Document 3 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 4 of 5 that are fantastic or delusional and rise to the level of the irrational or wholly incredible. Gibbs v. Cross, 160 F.3d 962, 967 (3rd Cir. 1998) (quoting Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992)); see also Chance v. Tennessee, No. 02-5322, 2002 WL 31255478, at *1 (6th Cir. Oct. 7, 2002) (allegations that the plaintiff was the target of a government-sponsored contract hit were insufficient to establish imminent danger). Moreover, a prisoner s allegation that he faced imminent danger or was assaulted sometime in the past is insufficient basis to allow him to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to imminent danger exception to the three strikes provision. Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307, 310-11 (3d Cir. 2001); Medberry v. Butler, 185 F.3d 1189, 1192 (11th Cir. 1999); Ashley v. Dilworth, 147 F.3d 715, 717 (8th Cir. 1998); Luedke v. Bertand, 32 F. Supp. 2d 1074, 1077 (E.D. Wis. 1999). This is particularly true where, as here, Plaintiff s allegations pertain to events that occurred at Bellamy Creek Correctional Facility, a facility other than his current place of incarceration. See Day v. Maynard, 200 F.3d 665, 667 (10th Cir. 1999). In light of the foregoing, § 1915(g) prohibits Plaintiff from proceeding in forma pauperis in this action. Plaintiff has thirty 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 thirty-day period, his case will be dismissed without prejudice, but he will continue to be responsible for payment of the $350.00 filing fee. Date: July 11, 2007 /s/ Robert Holmes Bell ROBERT HOLMES BELL CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -4- Case 1:07-cv-00607-RHB-JGS Document 3 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 5 of 5 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. -5-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
