Maze v. Terrell et al, No. 1:2014cv01153 - Document 28 (W.D. Tenn. 2015)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT (ECF No. 27) ORDER OF DISMISSAL ORDER CERTIFYING APPEAL NOT TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL AND ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) 27 . Signed by Judge James D. Todd on 4/14/15. (Todd, James)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Maze v. Terrell et al Doc. 28 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE EASTERN DIVISION PAUL DAVID MAZE, Plaintiff, vs. No. 14-1153-JDT-egb RENEA TERRELL, et al., Defendants. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT (ECF No. 27) ORDER OF DISMISSAL ORDER CERTIFYING APPEAL NOT TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL AND ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) On July1, 2014, Plaintiff Paul David Maze, inmate number 25428-076, who is confined as an inmate at the Federal Correctional Institution in Greeneville, Illinois, filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' l983. (ECF No. 1.) On July 9, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 5.) On July 14, 2014, the Court granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis and assessed the civil filing fee. (ECF No. 6.) The Clerk shall record the defendants as Nurse Practitioner Renea Terrell, Nurse Shelly McKnight, Officer Barbara Crowell, the Zoloft Company, and Obion County.1 On July 24, 2014, Plaintiff filed a supplement to his complaint. (ECF No. 15.) On August 7, 2014, Plaintiff filed a second supplement. (ECF No. 18.) On April 6, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion 1 Dockets.Justia.com for leave to supplement the complaint with a third supplement. (ECF No. 27.) The motion for leave to supplement the complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff Maze was previously confined at the Obion County Jail. (ECF No. 1.) Because of the multiple supplements, it is necessary for the Court to summarize Plaintiff’s allegations. Plaintiff alleges that, for nine to ten months during his incarceration at the Obion County Jail, Defendant Nurse Shelly McKnight treated him with a prescription for Zoloft. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Renea Terrell would not provide him with any information about the side effects of Zoloft. Plaintiff did his own research and found “all kinds of helpful information” that helped him to “identify certain symptoms” from which he suffered. (ECF No. 15 PageID 57.) Plaintiff then self-diagnosed himself with every possible side effect and possible allergic reaction. Plaintiff complained of these symptoms to Defendant Terrell, who advised him that “she was [his] doctor” and that he did not need to see another doctor because there was nothing wrong with him and he was not having an allergic reaction. (ECF No. 15 at PageID 60.) Defendant Terrell told Plaintiff his problems were due to his history of alcohol and drug abuse. (Id.) Plaintiff believes that Defendant Obion County Jail Officer Barbara Crowell conspired with Defendants Terrell and McKnight to prevent him from receiving additional medical treatment. (ECF No. 1 at PageID 2.) Plaintiff received a medical examination after he was transferred to the West Tennessee Detention Facility. (ECF No. 18-1 at PageID 83.) The doctor recommended a neurologic evaluation for spasticity of the lower extremities. (Id.) Plaintiff’s x-rays were interpreted as demonstrating early arthritic changes normal 1 Plaintiff named the Obion County Jail as a defendant. Governmental departments, divisions, and buildings are not suable entities. Therefore, the Court construes those claims against Obion County. See generally Hafer v. Melo, 502 U. S. 21 (1991). 2 for his age. (Id. at PageID 85.) Plaintiff is now confined at the FCI Greeneville and, after medical evaluation, the Health Services Department denied Plaintiff’s request for additional consultation and testing, stating that medical staff would monitor his situation through chronic care visits and sick call. (ECF No. 27-1 at PageID 107.) While Plaintiff has not been diagnosed with any side effect or allergic reaction due to Zoloft, he believes that the use of the drug “could cause severe lifethreaten[ing] injuries to his body and health, both physically and internally.” (ECF No. 1-1 at PageID 9.) He seeks compensatory damages. The Court is required to screen prisoner complaints and to dismiss any complaint, or any portion thereof, if the complaintC (1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A(b); see also 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2)(B). In assessing whether the complaint in this case states a claim on which relief may be granted, the standards under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), as stated in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-79 (2009), and in Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007), are applied. Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010). “Accepting all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true, the Court ‘consider[s] the factual allegations in [the] complaint to determine if they plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief.’” Williams v. Curtin, 631 F.3d 380, 383 (6th Cir. 2011) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 681) (alteration in original). “ [P]leadings that . . . are no more than conclusions . . . are not entitled to the assumption of truth. While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679; see also 3 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 n.3, (“Rule 8(a)(2) still requires a ‘showing,’ rather than a blanket assertion, of entitlement to relief. Without some factual allegation in the complaint, it is hard to see how a claimant could satisfy the requirement of providing not only ‘fair notice’ of the nature of the claim, but also ‘grounds’ on which the claim rests.’). “A complaint can be frivolous either factually or legally. See Neitzke [v. Williams], 490 U.S. [319,] 325, 109 S. Ct. at 1827 [(1989)]. Any complaint that is legally frivolous would ipso facto fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See id. at 328-29, 109 S. Ct. 1827.” Hill, 630 F.3d at 470. Whether a complaint is factually frivolous under '' 1915A(b)(1) and 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) is a separate issue from whether it fails to state a claim for relief. Statutes allowing a complaint to be dismissed as frivolous give Ajudges not only the authority to dismiss a claim based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, but also the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint=s factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.@ Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327, 109 S. Ct. 1827 (interpreting 28 U.S.C. ' 1915). Unlike a dismissal for failure to state a claim, where a judge must accept all factual allegations as true, Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949-50, a judge does not have to accept Afantastic or delusional@ factual allegations as true in prisoner complaints that are reviewed for frivolousness. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327-28, 109 S. Ct. 1827. Id. at 471. “Pro se complaints are to be held ‘to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,’ and should therefore be liberally construed.” Williams, 631 F.3d at 383 (quoting Martin v. Overton, 391 F.3d 710, 712 (6th Cir. 2004)). Pro se litigants and prisoners are not exempt from the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As the Sixth Circuit has explained: Before the recent onslaught of pro se prisoner suits, the Supreme Court suggested that pro se complaints are to be held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 92 S. Ct. 594, 30 L. Ed. 2d 652 (1972) (per curiam). Neither that Court nor other courts, however, have been willing to abrogate basic pleading essentials in pro se suits. See, e.g., id. at 521, 92 S. Ct. at 596 (holding petitioner to standards of Conley v. Gibson); Merritt 4 v. Faulkner, 697 F.2d 761 (7th Cir.) (duty to be less stringent with pro se complaint does not require court to conjure up unplead allegations), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 986, 104 S. Ct. 434, 78 L. Ed. 2d 3366 (1983); McDonald v. Hall, 610 F.2d 16 (1st Cir.1979) (same); Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237 (D.D.C. 1987) (pro se plaintiffs should plead with requisite specificity so as to give defendants notice); Holsey v. Collins, 90 F.R.D. 122 (D. Md. 1981) (even pro se litigants must meet some minimum standards). Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989); see also Brown v. Matauszak, No. 09-2259, 2011 WL 285251, at *5 (6th Cir. Jan. 31, 2011) (affirming dismissal of pro se complaint for failure to comply with “unique pleading requirements” and stating “a court cannot ‘create a claim which [a plaintiff] has not spelled out in his pleading’”) (quoting Clark v. Nat’l Travelers Life Ins. Co., 518 F.2d 1167, 1169 (6th Cir. 1975)) (alteration in original); Payne v. Secretary of Treas., 73 F. App=x 836, 837 (6th Cir. 2003) (affirming sua sponte dismissal of complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) and stating, “[n]either this court nor the district court is required to create Payne=s claim for her”); cf. Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004) (“District judges have no obligation to act as counsel or paralegal to pro se litigants.”). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983,2 a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) a deprivation of rights secured by the “Constitution and laws” of the United States (2) committed by a defendant acting under color of state law. Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 150 (1970). 2 Section 1983 provides: Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia. 5 Zoloft is a prescribed medication and not a company. To the extent that Plaintiff is attempting to sue the manufacturer of Zoloft, private companies and corporations do not act under color of state law. See Hayes v. Allstate Ins. Co., 95 F. Supp.2d 832, 836 (W.D. Tenn. 2000) (citing American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 52 (1999) (holding that action of private, state-regulated, insurance company not under color of state law); Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830, 840-42 (1982) (holding that private school’s decisions not attributable to state, despite extensive state regulation of school); Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1008-12 (1982) (holding that nursing home not a state actor despite extensive state regulation of the industry); Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345, 358-59 (1974) (holding that heavily regulated electric company’s decision is not a state action); Adams v. Vandemark, 855 F.2d 312, 317 (6th Cir. 1988) (holding private corporation not a state actor despite being subject to state regulation). Plaintiff does not adequately allege a civil conspiracy between Defendants Terrell, McKnight, and Crowell. As the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has explained: In Spadafore v. Gardner, 330 F.3d 849 (6th Cir. 2003), we stated the standard governing a § 1983 conspiracy claim: A civil conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to injure another by unlawful action. Express agreement among all the conspirators is not necessary to find the existence of a civil conspiracy. Each conspirator need not have known all of the details of the illegal plan or all of the participants involved. All that must be shown is that there was a single plan, that the alleged coconspirator shared in the general conspiratorial objective, and that an overt act was committed in furtherance of the conspiracy that caused injury to the complainant. 330 F.3d at 854 (quoting Hooks v. Hooks, 771 F.2d 935, 943-44 (6th Cir. 1985)). Although circumstantial evidence may prove a conspiracy , “[i]t is well-settled that conspiracy claims must be pled with some degree of specificity and that vague and 6 conclusory allegations unsupported by material facts will not be sufficient to state such a claim under § 1983.” Id. (quoting Gutierrez v. Lynch, 826 F.2d 1534, 1538 (6th Cir. 1987)); accord Farhat v. Jopke, 370 F.3d 580, 599 (6th Cir. 2004). That pleading standard is “relatively strict.” Fieger v. Cox, 524 F.3d 770, 776 (6th Cir. 2008). Heyne v. Metro. Nashville Pub. Sch., 655 F.3d 556, 563 (6th Cir. 2011). An assertion, unaccompanied by supporting facts, that parties conspired with each other is a legal conclusion that a court need not accept as true. Id. at 563-64 (collecting cases). Allegations of “a plan or agreement to violate [the plaintiff’s] constitutional rights” is required. Id. at 564. Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendants conspired with each other is entirely devoid of supporting facts. Plaintiff’s complaint contains no allegations of actionable wrongdoing by Defendant Barbara Crowell. Plaintiff does not allege any involvement of Crowell in decisions regarding his medical treatment. When a complaint fails to allege any action by a defendant, it necessarily fails to “state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. Plaintiff sues Obion County. A local government “cannot be held liable under 1983 on a respondeat superior theory.” Monell v. Dep’t. of Soc. Serv., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978) (emphasis in original); see also Searcy v. City of Dayton, 38 F.3d 282, 286 (6th Cir. 1994); Berry v. City of Detroit, 25 F.3d 1342, 1345 (6th Cir. 1994). A municipality cannot be held responsible for a constitutional deprivation unless there is a direct causal link between a municipal policy or custom and the alleged constitutional deprivation. Monell, 436 U.S. at 691-92; Deaton v. Montgomery Co., Ohio, 989 F.2d 885, 889 (6th Cir. 1993). To demonstrate municipal liability, a plaintiff “must (1) identify the municipal policy or custom, (2) connect the policy to the municipality, and (3) show that his particular injury was incurred due to execution of that policy.” Alkire v. Irving, 330 F.3d 802, 7 815 (6th Cir. 2003) (citing Garner v. Memphis Police Dep’t, 8 F.3d 358, 364 (6th Cir. 1993)). When “a government ‘custom has not received formal approval through the body’s official decisionmaking channels,’ such a custom may still be the subject of a § 1983 suit.” Alkire, 330 F.3d at 815 (quoting Monell, 436 U.S. at 690-91). The policy or custom “must be ‘the moving force of the constitutional violation’ in order to establish the liability of a government body under § 1983.” Searcy, 38 F.3d at 286 (quoting Polk Co. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 326 (1981) (citation omitted)). “[T]he touchstone of ‘official policy’ is designed ‘to distinguish acts of the municipality from acts of employees of the municipality, and thereby make clear that municipal liability is limited to action for which the municipality is actually responsible.’” City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112, 138 (1988) (quoting Pembaur v. Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 479-80 (1986)) (emphasis in original). Although civil rights plaintiffs are not required to plead the facts demonstrating municipal liability with particularity, Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence & Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 168-69 (1993), the complaint must be sufficient to put the municipality on notice of the plaintiff’s theory of liability, see, e.g., Fowler v. Campbell, Civil Action No. 3:06CV-P610-H, 2007 WL 1035007, at *2 (W.D. Ky. Mar. 30, 2007); Yeackering v. Ankrom, No. 4:05-CV-00018-M, 2005 WL 1877964, at *2 (W.D. Ky. Aug. 5, 2005); Oliver v. City of Memphis, No. 04-2074-B, 2004 WL 3316242, at *4 (W.D. Tenn. Dec. 2, 2004); cf. Raub v. Correctional Med. Servs., Inc., No. 0613942, 2008 WL 160611, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 15, 2008) (denying motion to dismiss where complaint contained conclusory allegations of a custom or practice); Cleary v. County of Macomb, No. 06- 15505, 2007 WL 2669102, at *20 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 6, 2007) (same); Morningstar v. City of Detroit, No. 06-11073, 2007 WL 2669156, at *8 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 6, 2007) (same); Chidester v. 8 City of Memphis, No. 02-2556 MA/A, 2006 WL 1421099, at *3 (W.D. Tenn. June 15, 2005). The allegations of the complaint fail to identify a purported official policy or custom which caused injury to Plaintiff. Instead, it appears that Plaintiff is suing Obion County because he was confined in a county institution. The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. See generally Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 (1991). An Eighth Amendment claim consists of both objective and subjective components. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994); Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 8 (1992); Wilson, 501 U.S. at 298; Williams v. Curtin, 633 F.3d at 383; Mingus v. Butler, 591 F.3d 474, 479-80 (6th Cir. 2010). The objective component requires that the deprivation be “sufficiently serious. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834; Hudson, 503 U.S. at 8; Wilson, 501 U.S. at 298. Under Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976), “deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners constitutes the ‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,’ . . . proscribed by the Eighth Amendment.” However, not “every claim by a prisoner that he has not received adequate medical treatment states a violation of the Eighth Amendment.” Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105. “In order to state a cognizable claim, a prisoner must allege acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. It is only such indifference that can offend ‘evolving standards of decency’ in violation of the Eighth Amendment.” Id., 429 U.S. at 106. Within the context of Estelle claims, the objective component requires that the medical need be sufficiently serious. Hunt v. Reynolds, 974 F.2d 734, 735 (6th Cir. 1992). “A medical need is 9 serious if it is one that has been diagnosed by a physician as mandating treatment or one that is so obvious that even a lay person would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor’s attention. Ramos v. Lamm, 639 F.2d 559, 575 (10th Cir. 1980) (quoting Laaman v. Helgemoe, 437 F. Supp. 269, 311 (D.N.H. 1977)). To make out a claim of an Eighth Amendment Estelle violation, a prisoner must plead facts showing that “prison authorities have denied reasonable requests for medical treatment in the face of an obvious need for such attention where the inmate is thereby exposed to undue suffering or the threat of tangible residual injury.” Westlake v. Lucas, 537 F.2d 857, 860 (6th Cir. 1976). The Court clarified the meaning of deliberate indifference in Farmer v. Brennan, as the reckless disregard of a substantial risk of serious harm; mere negligence will not suffice. Id. 511 U.S. at 835-36. Consequently, allegations of medical malpractice or negligent diagnosis and treatment fail to state an Eighth Amendment claim of cruel and unusual punishment. See Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106. When a prisoner has received some medical attention but disputes the adequacy of that treatment, the federal courts are reluctant to second-guess the medical judgments of prison officials and constitutionalize claims which sound in state tort law. Westlake, 537 F.2d at 860 n. 5. Plaintiff admits that he was seen and prescribed medication by Defendant McKnight. He admits he was seen by Defendant Terrell, although he alleges that her examination, diagnosis, and treatment were inadequate. A difference of opinion between a prisoner and medical personnel about diagnosis, testing, or treatment fails to state an Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. Westlake, id. 10 Even if McKnight and Terrell were negligent in treating and evaluating Plaintiff, that error would amount at most to malpractice. “[A] complaint that a physician has been negligent in treating or failing to treat a medical condition does not state a valid claim of medical mistreatment under the Eighth Amendment. Medical malpractice does not become a constitutional violation merely because the victim is a prisoner.@ Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-06. The allegations are insufficient to establish the subjective component of an Eighth Amendment violation. The Sixth Circuit recently held that a district court may allow a prisoner to amend his complaint to avoid a sua sponte dismissal under the PLRA. LaFountain v. Harry, 715 F.3d 944, 951 (6th Cir. 2013); see also Brown v. R.I., 511 App’x 4, 5 (1st Cir. Feb. 22, 2013) (per curiam) (“Ordinarily, before dismissal for failure to state a claim is ordered, some form of notice and an opportunity to cure the deficiencies in the complaint must be afforded.”). Leave to amend is not required where a deficiency cannot be cured. Brown, 511 App’x at 5; Gonzalez-Gonzalez v. United States, 257 F.3d 31, 37 (1st Cir. 2001) (“This does not mean, of course, that every sua sponte dismissal entered without prior notice to the plaintiff automatically must be reversed. If it is crystal clear that the plaintiff cannot prevail and that amending the complaint would be futile, then a sua sponte dismissal may stand.”); Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 114 (3d Cir. 2002) (“in forma pauperis plaintiffs who file complaints subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) should receive leave to amend unless amendment would be inequitable or futile”); Curley v. Perry, 246 F.3d 1278, 1284 (10th Cir. 2001) (“We agree with the majority view that sua sponte dismissal of a meritless complaint that cannot be salvaged by amendment comports with due process and does not 11 infringe the right of access to the courts.”). The deficiencies in Plaintiff=s complaint cannot be cured by amendment because the claims asserted are entirely lacking in merit. Therefore, the Court DISMISSES the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. '' 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1). Judgment shall be entered for all Defendants. The Court must also consider whether Plaintiff should be allowed to appeal this decision in forma pauperis, should he seek to do so. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit requires that all district courts in the circuit determine, in all cases where the appellant seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, whether the appeal would be frivolous. Twenty-eight U.S.C. ' 1915(a)(3) provides that “[a]n appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” The good faith standard is an objective one. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). The test under 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(a) for whether an appeal is taken in good faith is whether the litigant seeks appellate review of any non-frivolous issue. Id. at 445-46. It would be inconsistent for a district court to determine that a complaint should be dismissed prior to service on the defendants, but has sufficient merit to support an appeal in forma pauperis. See Williams v. Kullman, 722 F.2d 1048, 1050 n.1 (2d Cir. 1983). The same considerations that lead the Court to dismiss this case for failure to state a claim also compel the conclusion that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. It is therefore CERTIFIED, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(a)(3), that any appeal in this matter by Plaintiff would not be taken in good faith and Plaintiff may not proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. 12 If Plaintiff appeals the dismissal of this case, the Court is required to assess the $505 appellate filing fee.3 In McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 610-11 (6th Cir. 1997), the Sixth Circuit set out specific procedures for implementing the PLRA. Therefore, Plaintiff is instructed that, if he wishes to take advantage of the installment procedures for paying the appellate filing fee, he must comply with the procedures set out in McGore and 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(b). For analysis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) of future filings, if any, by Plaintiff, this is the third dismissal of one of his cases as frivolous or for failure to state a claim.4 Section 1915(g) provides: 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 ground 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). Maze is a prisoner within the meaning of the statute. It is hereby ORDERED that Paul David Maze, BOP registration number 25428-076, is barred from filing any further actions in forma pauperis while he is a prisoner within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h) unless he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. Any action filed by Maze must be accompanied by the civil filing fee or by allegations sufficient to show that, at the time of filing the action, he is under 3 Effective December 1, 2013, the appellate filing fee increased to $500. There is also a $5 charge for filing the notice of appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1917. 4 See Maze v. Stewart, No. 10-1324-JDT-egb (W.D. Tenn. June 21, 2011), a § 1983 complaint dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1), for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted, and Maze v. McDowell, No. 10-1121-JDT-egb (W.D. Tenn. August 1, 2011), a § 1983 complaint dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1), for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. 13 imminent danger of serious physical injury. If Maze submits any complaint that does not allege that he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury, or is not accompanied by the civil filing fee, the complaint will be filed and Plaintiff will be required to remit the full civil filing fee. If he fails to do so, the case will be dismissed and the filing fee will be assessed from his inmate trust fund account. Plaintiff is CAUTIONED that any attempt to evade this order by filing actions in other jurisdictions that are removed or transferred to this district will result in the imposition of a sanction in the full amount of the civil filing fee. This “strike” shall take effect when judgment is entered. Coleman v. Tollefson, 733 F.3d 175, 177-78 (6th Cir. 2013), cert. granted, 135 S. Ct. 43 (2014) (Nos. 13-1333, 13A985). IT IS SO ORDERED. s/James D. Todd JAMES D. TODD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14
]]>
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.
