Staffney v. Hines et al, No. 2:2011cv14946 - Document 5 (E.D. Mich. 2011)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER Denying Application for Leave to Proceed Without Prepayment of the Filing Fee, and Dismissing re 1 Complaint filed by Harold Staffney. Signed by District Judge Marianne O. Battani. (BThe)

Download PDF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION HAROLD STAFFNEY, #122425, Plaintiff, CASE NO. 2:11-CV-14946 HONORABLE MARIANNE O. BATTANI v. DIRECTOR HINES, et al., Defendants. / OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF S APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF THE FILING FEE AND DISMISSING HIS CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT I. Introduction Michigan prisoner Harold Staffney ( Plaintiff ) has filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as an application to proceed without prepayment of fees or costs so that he may proceed without prepayment of the $350.00 filing fee for this action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). In his complaint, Plaintiff challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding and decision. The actions giving rise to the complaint occurred while he was confined at the Gus Harrison Correctional Facility in Adrian, Michigan. Plaintiff names the Director of the Michigan Department of Corrections and several prison officials as defendants in this action and sues them in their individual and official capacities. He seeks monetary damages, injunctive relief, and other appropriate relief. II. Discussion Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act ( PLRA ), Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996), a prisoner may be precluded from proceeding without prepayment of the filing fee in a civil action under certain circumstances. The statute states, in relevant part: In 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. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). In short, the three strikes provision requires the Court to dismiss a civil case where the prisoner seeks to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee if, on three or more previous occasions, a federal court has dismissed the prisoner s action because it was frivolous or malicious or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Id.; see also 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) ). Plaintiff is a prolific litigator in federal court. The Court s records reveal that he has filed more than three prior civil actions which have been dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Staffney v. Allen, No. 1:97-CV-891 (W.D. Mich. June 18, 1998); Staffney v. Benson, No. 4:96-CV-55 (W.D. Mich. March 12, 1996); Staffney v. Caruso, No. 2:95-CV-98 (W.D. Mich. July 28, 1995); Staffney v. Glynn, No. 1:94-CV-56 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 11, 1994). Although some of the dismissals were entered before the PLRA s enactment in 1996, such dismissals nevertheless count as strikes. See Wilson v. Yaklich, 148 F.3d 596, 604 (6th Cir. 1998). Moreover, Plaintiff has been put on notice that he is a three-striker and has had a case dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Staffney v. Bayne, et al., No. 4:04-CV-41 (W.D. Mich. April 12, 2004). Consequently, Plaintiff is a three-striker who cannot proceed without 2 prepayment of the filing fee unless he demonstrates that he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff has neither alleged nor established that he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury so as to fall within the exception to the three strikes provision set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). His current complaint concerns a prison disciplinary proceeding and decision. Plaintiff has thus failed to demonstrate that he should be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis despite the fact that he has had three or more prior lawsuits dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Court shall therefore deny him leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee and dismiss his complaint. III. Conclusion Accordingly, for the reasons stated, the Court DENIES Plaintiff s application for leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee. The Court also DISMISSES his civil rights complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). This dismissal is without prejudice to the filing of a new complaint with payment of the $350.00 filing fee. The Court notes that any such complaint will be reviewed to determine whether it should be served on the defendants or summarily dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), which requires the Court to dismiss a complaint brought against governmental entities, officers, and employees if the complaint is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Lastly, the Court concludes that it has properly applied the three strikes provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) such that an appeal from this order would be frivolous and, therefore, cannot be taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); see also McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 610-11 (6th Cir. 1997). This case is closed. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Marianne O. Battani MARIANNE O. BATTANI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: November 22, 2011 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the above date a copy of this Order was served upon the Plaintiff via ordinary U.S. Mail s/Bernadette M. Thebolt Case Manager 4

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.