United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
E. RICHARD WEBBER SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and submission of a civil complaint and supplemental documents under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Based on plaintiff’s status as a “three striker” and a malicious filer in this Court, the Court will dismiss this action, without prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
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 filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. [Doc. #2].
Plaintiff’s complaint is handwritten and numbers eighty-eight (88) pages, and it is extremely difficult to read. Plaintiff names forty-five (45) individuals as defendants in this action, eleven (11) of which are either Judges or employees of this Court. Of the other defendants, plaintiff also names Governor Nixon, several state court judges, a myriad of wardens for the Missouri Department of Corrections, and several correctional employees of at least four different Missouri correctional facilities.
Although his allegations are difficult to discern, it appears that plaintiff’s overall assertions center around his belief that the forty-five defendants have engaged in a conspiracy to: 1) place him in a mental ward (presumably at JCCC); 2) assist in a criminal investigation against plaintiff in Scott and Mississippi Counties; 3) assist another inmate in killing plaintiff during his incarceration at JCCC; 4) frighten plaintiff’s fiancé into believing that she could be raped by another inmate who is presently incarcerated at JCCC; 5) place plaintiff into a “Jesus Sexual Healing Program”; 6) overlook his “legitimate” claims in other civil cases and deny his pro se motions in his criminal actions from 1998-2014; 7) assist another inmate in “taking over” plaintiff’s identity; 8) medicating plaintiff with psychotropic drugs; 9) placing a “sonogram” on plaintiff’s head; and 10) “retaliating” against plaintiff with transfers to different institutions for what he believes to have been legitimate civil rights claims within the past 7-10 years.
In the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996, Congress enacted what is commonly described as the
"three 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, CO-1, 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 “three 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, he was being subjected to
"imminent danger." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
In the body of all of his disjointed and rambling filings, plaintiff alleges in a wholly conclusory manner that he has been under “imminent danger” at some point in time during his incarceration in the past several years.
He claims that in December of 2013 he was transferred from Potosi Correctional Center to JCCC and forced into a “Jesus Sexual Healing Program” that is hidden from the public at JCCC. He states that as part of the program he was – at some point - subjected to “electrical volts” and “possible poison by defendants.” Plaintiff fails to allege when these acts occurred or if they are still occurring on a daily basis.
Because plaintiff’s complaint does not show at the time of the filing of the amended complaint he was suffering from imminent danger, his motion to proceed in forma pauperis will be denied and his case ...