United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Southeastern Division
HOSEA L. ROBINSON, Plaintiff,
STATE OF MISSOURI, et al., Defendants.
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
EDWARD AUTREY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on the motion of plaintiff Hosea
L. Robinson for leave to commence this civil action without
prepayment of the filing fee. The motion will be denied, and
this case will be dismissed without prejudice to the filing
of a fully-paid complaint.
a prisoner and a frequent filer of lawsuits, is subject to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g), which limits a prisoner's ability
to obtain in forma pauperis status if he has filed at least
three actions that have been dismissed as frivolous,
malicious, for failure to state a claim, or on statute of
limitations grounds. Section 1915(g) provides in relevant
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). Section 1915(g) is commonly known
as the “three strikes” rule, and it has withstood
constitutional challenges. See Higgins v. Carpenter,
258 F.3d 797, 799 (8th Cir. 2001).
of this Court's files reveals that plaintiff has
accumulated three strikes. See Robinson v. City
of St. Louis Division of Corrections, et al., No.
4:16-cv-1535-RWS (E.D. Mo. Dec. 30, 2016); Robinson v.
State of Missouri, No. 4:18-cv-114-RLW (E.D. Mo. Jan.
29, 2018); Robinson v. State of Missouri, et al.,
No. 4:18-cv-1225-JAR (E.D. Mo. Oct. 24, 2018); and
Robinson v. State of Missouri et al., No.
1:18-cv-297-NCC (E.D. Mo. Apr. 23, 2019). Therefore, he may
proceed in forma pauperis in this action only if he is under
imminent danger of serious physical injury.
filed the original complaint on June 20, 2019, alleging
generally that defendants were deliberately indifferent to
his healthcare needs and that his constitutional rights were
violated during his state court criminal
proceedings. On July 11, 2019, plaintiff filed an
amended complaint. “It is well-established that an
amended complaint supersedes an original complaint and
renders the original complaint without legal effect.”
In re Wireless Telephone Federal Cost Recovery Fees
Litigation, 396 F.3d 922, 928 (8th Cir. 2005). In the
amended complaint, plaintiff asserts that he wishes to bring
a class action on behalf of all “chronically ill,
disabled [inmates] under the equal protection clause of the
14th Amendment.” He asserts that he wishes
to bring claims similar to those he brought in Robinson
v. Missouri, No. 1:18-CV-297 NCC
(E.D.Mo.). Additionally, he alleges that his
constitutional rights were violated during his state court
criminal proceedings. He seeks injunctive relief.
the complaint nor the amended complaint contain
non-conclusory allegations that plaintiff is under imminent
danger of serious physical injury. He therefore may not
proceed in forma pauperis in this action. As a result, the
Court will deny plaintiffs motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, and will dismiss this case without prejudice
to the filing of a fully-paid complaint.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. #2] is
IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for
injunctive relief [Doc. #7] is DENIED.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is
DISMISSED without prejudice to the filing of
a fully-paid complaint. A separate order of dismissal will be
IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs motion to appoint
counsel [Doc. #9] is DENIED as moot.