United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
REGINALD D. WILSON, Plaintiff,
CORIZON MEDICAL, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
A. ROSS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court upon review of plaintiff Reginald
D. Wilson's amended complaint. For the reasons discussed
below, the Court revokes Wilson's in forma
pauperis status, and dismisses this action without
prejudice to re-filing upon payment of the $400.00 filing
a "three strikes" litigant, filed the instant case on
May 3, 2017. He was originally granted in forma
pauperis status under the imminent danger exception of
§ 1915(g), based upon his allegations he was being
denied necessary surgical treatment for prostate cancer. Upon
initial review, the Court entered an order dated May 11, 2017
noting that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which
relief could be granted. (Docket No. 5). The Court permitted
plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint no later than
June 12, 2017. He subsequently filed a motion asking the
court to order that a video recording of a March 8, 2017
assault be released to him (Docket No. 6/filed May 23, 2017),
a motion to appoint counsel (Docket No. 8/filed June 1, 2017)
and a second motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (Docket No. 12/filed June 14, 2017). He filed
an amended complaint on June 14, 2017. (Docket No. 11).
amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that "he is under
imminent danger of serious physical injury due to Corizon
inability or lack of concern to initiate adequate protocol to
my emergency situation after assault on 03-08-17 - 03-11-17
by not having Doctor on staff before, during and after
assault. I was only seen for a brief time by a Nurse
Scott." (Docket No. 11 at 6). Plaintiff alleges that
Nurse Scott provided medical treatment plaintiff considered
inadequate, and alleges "[s]econdly, no doctor? Nothing
else was done." (Id. at 6-7). Plaintiff alleges
that Dr. Fuentes and other unspecified individuals were
deliberately indifferent to his medical needs for past
injuries, video camera footage will confirm the past assault,
a corrections officer made a rude comment to him at mealtime,
he had to wait two days to see a doctor, and he was not
transported to a different facility to receive better medical
care. In setting forth his claims, plaintiff
uses the words "imminent danger of serious physical
injury that is on-going to date, " but he neither
explains what imminent physical danger he is actually in nor
sets forth his earlier allegation that he is being denied
necessary surgical treatment for cancer. As relief, plaintiff
states "I would like Corizon Medical to become more
effective to urgent care of detainees and not delay or
compromise the health of myself or other(s). Retrieve/Review
video(s). Prosecute." (Id. at 15). He also
seeks "$2, 000, 000.00 for medical injuries and future
medical problems this assault caused to shorten life
become clear to the Court that plaintiff is not actually in
imminent danger of serious physical injury. The amended
complaint omits the very allegations upon which the Court
based its decision to grant in forma pauperis
status, and contains no other credible allegations sufficient
to trigger § 1915(g)'s imminent danger exception.
The Court will therefore revoke plaintiffs in forma
pauperis status pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
See Camp v. Oliver, 798 F.2d 434 (11th Cir. 1986)
(in forma pauperis status is a privilege granted by
the federal courts, not a right, and it may therefore be
revoked if it appears the goals of § 1915 are not being
furthered); see also Anderson v. Hobbs, 2014 WL
4425802 (W.D. Ark. Sept. 9, 2014) (revoking in forma
pauperis status after it became clear plaintiff was not
actually in imminent danger of serious physical injury and
noting that plaintiff was a litigious prisoner who appeared
to be engaging in gamesmanship). This action will be
dismissed, without prejudice to being re-filed upon
plaintiffs payment of the $400.00 statutory filing fee.
See Witzke v. Hiller, 966 F.Supp. 538, 540 (E.D.
Mich. 1997) (revoking in forma pauperis status under
§ 1915(g) and dismissing action without prejudice to
prisoner's right to re-file it upon payment of filing
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs in forma
pauperis status is REVOKED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without
prejudice to being re-filed upon payment of the $400.00
filing fee. A separate order of dismissal will be entered
FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for release of video
recording (Docket No. 6), motion to appoint counsel (Docket
No. 8), and second motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (Docket No. 12) are DENIED as moot.
HEREBY CERTD7IED that an appeal from this dismissal would not
be taken in good faith.
 See Wilson v. City of St.
Louis, No. 4-.07-CV-854-SNLJ (E.D. Mo. Jun. 25, 2007);
Wilson v. Wilson, No. 4:09-CV-160-MLM (E.D. Mo. Feb.
18, 2009); Wilson v. Hallazzgo, No. 4:09-CV-1346-TCM
(E.D. Mo. Sept. 4, 2009); Wilson v. State of Mo.,
No. 4:11-CV-1014-AGF (E.D. Mo. Jul. 19, 2011).
 The Court notes that these allegations
merely describe plaintiffs disagreement with treatment
decisions, allegations that do not state a claim of
constitutional magnitude. See Estate of Rosenberg v.