United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
TERRY I. ADELMAN, Magistrate Judge.
Before the Court is plaintiff=s request to proceed without payment of the filing fee, along with plaintiff=s complaint and a multitude of other papers filed by plaintiff and attached to his complaint. After fully reviewing plaintiff=s filings, the Court makes the following findings.
Plaintiff, an inmate at Jefferson City Correctional Center ("JCCC"), filed the instant action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging violations of his civil rights. Plaintiff has filed a two-page, handwritten motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis, presumably brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This document is difficult to read, as it is handwritten and has claims that run up the sides of the paper, as well as from top to bottom.
In the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996, Congress enacted what is commonly described as the Athree strikes@ provision of 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). It 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 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.
If a prisoner is ineligible to proceed under 1915, then he may still file an action or appeal, but he must pay the full filing fee up front or suffer dismissal. Ashley v. E. Dilworth, COB1, 147 F.3d 715, 716B17 (8th Cir.1998).
Plaintiff has filed at least three previous cases that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious or for failure to state a claim. Accordingly, plaintiff has Athree strikes, @ and he cannot proceed in a 1983 action unless he pays the full filing fee or shows that at the time of filing his complaint, f he was being subjected to Aimminent danger.@ 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). Plaintiff has not shown that he was subjected to imminent danger at the time of the filing of his complaint. As such, the Court cannot grant his motion to proceed in forma pauperis at this time.
In the body of his complaint [Doc. #1], plaintiff alleges in a wholly conclusory manner that he has been under Aimminent danger@ at some point in time during his incarceration at JCCC. He claims that he has been forced into a "Jesus Sexual Healing Program" that is hidden from the public at JCCC. He states that as part of the program he has been - at some point - subjected to "electrical volts" in his penis and through the bottom of his feet and "possible poison by defendants." Plaintiff fails to allege when these acts occurred or if they are still occurring on a daily basis.
Plaintiff is no stranger to this Court. Rather, plaintiff has been a frequent filer before this Court, having filed roughly nineteen (19) cases within our Court within the past approximately fifteen (15) years. The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that in many of the cases filed by plaintiff before this Court, plaintiff has become known as somewhat of a Alitigious@ filer. He often seeks to Abombard@ the Court with frivolous motions and notices. Many times, plaintiff must be reminded of the need to follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court=s Local Rules when bringing matters before the Court. After having litigated so many matters before this Court, he should not have to be reminded of this Court=s Rules and Regulations so often. With this Memorandum and Order, plaintiff is being put on notice that this Court will not be as tolerant with plaintiff=s Alitigious@ filings of Anotices@ and frivolous Amotions.@ If plaintiff has been reminded of the Federal Rules in a prior case before this Court or in a prior Memorandum and Order, he will be expected to adhere to those Rules throughout this litigation.
Plaintiff's complaint is handwritten and totals forty-seven (47) pages in length. Plaintiff has named thirty-four (34) defendants in this action, including several different Wardens and correctional employees within the Missouri Department of Corrections, as well as five federal judges from this Court, a federal judge from the Western District of Missouri, the former Clerk of Court from the Eastern District of Missouri and the Clerk of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Although three of the pages of his complaint appear to come from a prior action in this Court, and are on a "court-form, " the rest of the pages of the complaint are written on unlined paper in cramped handwriting which slants up and down the page, as well as on both sides and through the top and bottom margins. Thus, the way the complaint is written makes plaintiff's allegations very difficult for the Court to review.
Although difficult to discern, it appears that plaintiff's allegations include assertions about events that have occurred during his incarceration in JCCC in Jefferson City (located within the venue of the Federal District Court of the Western District of Missouri), as well as events that occurred at Potosi Correctional Center ...