Terrell v. Schwall et al, No. 1:2010cv03022 - Document 2 (N.D. Ga. 2010)

Court Description: ORDER AND OPINION denying in forma pauperis, dismissing case without prejudice. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr on 10/12/10. (dr)
Download PDF
Terrell v. Schwall et al Doc. 2 Or.r 1 ;; (UW IN THE L'NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JAMES N FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ATLANTA D I V I S I O N < 1 ; / ' . WILLIE JAMES TERRELL, JR., Inmate No. 893844, Plaintiff, Clerk D"",,,,,,cIe, PRISONER CIVIL RIGHTS 42 U.S.c. § 1983 CIVIL ACTION NO. 1: 1O-CV-3022-TWT v. CRAIG L. SCHWALL; et aI., Defendants. WILLIE JAMES TERRELL, Inmate No. 893844, Plaintiff, v. PRISONER CIVIL RIGHTS 42 U.S.c. § 1983 CIVIL ACTION NO. 1: 1O-CV-3023-TWT CRAIG LAWRENCE SCHWALL, et aI., Defendants. WILLIE JAMES TERRELL, Inmate No. 893844, Plaintiff, PRISONER CIVIL RIGHTS 42 U.S.C. § 1983 CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:10-CV-3024-TWT v. CR.t\JG LAWRENCE SCHWALL, et al., ORDER AND OPINION A072A (Rev_8182) Dockets.Justia.com Plaintiff seeks leave to file these civil rights actions without paying the $350.00 filing fee. According to Subsection (g) of28 U.S.C. § 1915, a prisoner is prohibited from bringing a civil action in federal court in forma pauperis "ifthe .• 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 Cnited 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." This Court's records indicate that Plaintiff has filed numerous complaints Ga.); and Terrell v. Grady Mem'! Hosp., Appeal No. 09-130770D (lIth Cir.). Furthermore, this Court finds no indication that Plaintiff is "under imminent danger of serious physical injury.,,1 Accordingly, leave for Plaintiff to Plaintiff's conclusory allegations of excessive force set forth in Terrell v. SchwalL eta!., 1: 10-CV-3023- TWT is insufficient. Chavis v. Chappius, _F.3d_, No. 07-2304-pr, 2010 WL 3221875 at *6 (2d Cif. Aug. 17,2010) ("A court may tind that a complaint does not satisfy the 'imminent danger' exception of the complainant's claims of imminent danger are conclusory or ridiculous:') I 2 A072A (Rev.8J82) proceed in form.!! pauperifj in all three of the above-referenced actions is hereby DENIED. According to the Eleventh Circuit, "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 three strikes provision of § 1915(g). The prisoner ... must pay the filing fee at the time he initiates the suit." Dupree i v. I 284 F.3d 1234, 1236 (1 Ith Cir. 2002). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the instant actions are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS SO ORDERED this !A day of cYc:;r:- ,K4,t'-<U- _:if:' ,2010. ____ THOMAS W. THRASH, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE (citations omitted); Fuller v. Wilcox, 288 F. App'x 509, 51 I (10th Cir. 2008) (stating that vague and conclusory assertions ofharm are insufficient to fall within the "imminent danger" exception to § 1915(g)). 3 AO 72A (Rev.B/82)