United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on the motion of plaintiff King
Solomon Seals for leave to commence this civil action without
prepayment of the filing fee. (Docket No. 2). While
incarcerated, plaintiff has brought three or more civil
actions in federal court that were dismissed as frivolous,
malicious, or for failure to state a claim. Accordingly, for
the reasons discussed below, the Court will deny plaintiffs
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss
plaintiffs complaint without prejudice.
is a pro se litigant currently incarcerated at the Potosi
Correctional Center in Mineral Point, Missouri. He brings
this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, naming the
N.A.A.C.P. and its members as defendant. It is difficult to
discern plaintiffs ultimate claim, as his complaint consists
mainly of declarative statements in which plaintiff assumes
various titles and mantles of authority. For instance,
plaintiff states that he "would like to proclaim [his]
nationality and divine creed." (Docket No. 1 at 5). He
asserts that he is "Allah the father of the
universe." He further claims that he is "John the
Baptist, the forerunner of Jesus, and.. .also Jesus."
Plaintiff also claims that he is "all of the District
Judges as well as attorneys in the whole world."
Plaintiff requests that the Court enforce the laws that he
has established in America. (Docket No. 1 at 6). He also
wants to give every member of the N.A.A.C.P. "2, 000
years [punishment]." He further seeks damages in the
amount of "$700, 707, 700 zillion dollars."
seeks leave to commence this § 1983 action without
prepayment of the required filing fee. He is a frequent filer
who has had three previous cases dismissed on the basis of
frivolity, maliciousness, or for failure to state a claim. As
such, his motion to proceed in forma pauperis will be denied
and his case dismissed without prejudice.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)
Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 enacted what is commonly
known as the "three strikes" provision of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g). Orr v. Clements, 688 F.3d 463, 464
(8th Cir. 2012). Section 1915(g) provides in
In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action.. .under
this section if the prisoner has, on three or more prior
occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility,
brought an action...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
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). This section does not apply unless
the inmate litigant has three strikes at the time he files
his lawsuit or appeal. Campbell v. Davenport Police
Dep't, 471 F.3d 952, 952 (8th Cir. 2006).
Prisoners who have had three previous civil lawsuits or
appeals dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to
state a claim must prepay the entire filing fee. Lyon v.
Krol, 127 F.3d 763, 764 (8th Cir. 1997).
Plaintiffs Previous "Strikes"
of plaintiffs files in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Missouri reveal that he has
accumulated three strikes. Seales v. Groose, No.
2:95-cv-4187-SOW (W.D. Mo. July 17, 1995); Seales v.
Moorish Science Temple, No. 2:95-cv-4246-SOW (W.D. Mo.
Sept. 14, 1995); and Seales v. Groose, No.
2:96-cv-4053-FJG (W.D. Mo. April 22, 1996). Based on these
cases, the Western District has determined that plaintiff has
accumulated three strikes pursuant to28U.S.C.§1915(g),
and that he is not allowed to proceed in forma pauperis.
Seales v. Purkett, No. 2:99-cv-4050-NKL (W.D. Mo.
April 16, 1999). Plaintiff has also filed fourteen separate
cases in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri in which he has been denied in forma
pauperis status on the basis of § 1915(g). In all of those
cases, plaintiffs complaint was dismissed without prejudice.
to § 1915(g), an indigent inmate who has acquired three
strikes may still file a lawsuit if he or she is under
imminent danger of serious physical injury. Higgins v.
Carpenter,258 F.3d 797, 800 (8th Cir. 2001).
This exception provides a "safety valve for the three
strikes rule to prevent impending harms." Martin v.
Shelton,319 F.3d 1048, 1050 (8th Cir. 2003).
However, for this exception to apply, an otherwise ineligible
prisoner must be in imminent danger at the time of filing.
Ashley v. Dilworth,147 F.3d ...