Bradley (DO NOT FILE) v. Epps et al, No. 4:2014cv00013 - Document 23 (N.D. Miss. 2015)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION that pauper status REVOKED; prior order granting in forma pauperis WITHDRAWN re 16 Order on Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by District Judge Debra M. Brown on 9/23/15. (tab)

Download PDF
Bradley (DO NOT FILE) v. Epps et al Doc. 23 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI GREENVILLE DIVISION MONDRIC BRADLEY PLAINTIFF V. NO. 4:14-CV-00013-DMB-JMV CHRISTOPHER EPPS, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM OPINION The Court, sua sponte, reconsiders the in forma pauperis status of pro se prisoner Mondric Bradley under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). Under the PLRA, an inmate may not proceed in forma pauperis in a civil action if he has had three or more cases dismissed (“three strikes”) as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The Court initially dismissed the instant case because it appeared that Bradley had struck out under the three strikes provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), counting the following dismissals as strikes: Bradley v. Thompson, 4:98-CV-00171-GHD-JAD (frivolous); Bradley v. Puckett, 4:96-CV-00280WAP-JAD (failure to state a claim); and Bradley v. MDOC, et al., 4:06-CV-00205-MPM-JAD (failure to state a claim). Doc. #6 at 1–2. Bradley appealed and the case was remanded “for the limited purpose of allowing the district court to address Bradley’s pending [Rule 59(e)] motion.” Doc. #14 at 2. On remand, the Court found that the dismissal in Bradley v. Puckett, 4:96-CV-280-WAP-JAD (N.D. Miss), could not count as a strike because “[a]lthough the case of Bradley v. Puckett, et al., 4:96-CV-280-WAP-JAD (N.D. Miss.), was initially dismissed for failure to state a claim—which would count as a ‘strike’ under § 1915(g)—that decision was later vacated and remanded by the Fifth Circuit.” Doc. #15 at 2. In light of this Court’s determination that Bradley did not have three strikes, Dockets.Justia.com United States Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden granted Bradley’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. #16. Since then, the Court has discovered that Bradley appealed the dismissal of his case in Bradley v. MDOC, et al., 4:06-CV-00205-MPM-JAD. The Fifth Circuit “dismissed [Bradley’s appeal] as frivolous,” informing him that “the dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), in addition to the strike for the district court’s dismissal.” Bradley v. Miss. Dep’t of Corr., 283 Fed. App’x 250, 251 (5th Cir. 2008). The classification of the appellate dismissal as frivolous, in conjunction with the two “strikes” in Bradley v. Thompson, 4:98-CV-00171-GHDJAD (dismissed as frivolous), and Bradley v. MDOC, et al., 4:06-CV-00205-MPM-JAD (dismissed for failure to state a claim), constitutes Bradley’s third strike. Thus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), Bradley may proceed as a pauper only if he can demonstrate that he is in imminent danger of serious physical harm. As detailed in the Court’s earlier order, Doc. #6, Bradley’s complaint challenges the conditions of his confinement under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Upon careful review, his allegations do not raise an inference that he is in imminent danger of serious physical harm. It is therefore ORDERED that Bradley’s pauper status is REVOKED, and the prior order [16] granting him leave to proceed in forma pauperis is WITHDRAWN. It is further ORDERED that Bradley must pay the filing fee within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this order. If Bradley fails to pay the filing fee within twenty-one (21) days, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to dismiss this case without further action by the Court. SO ORDERED, this 23rd day of September, 2015. /s/ Debra M. Brown ____________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

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.