Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Solomon v. Warden at NECC

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Northern Division

November 7, 2019

KING SOLOMON, Plaintiff,
v.
WARDEN at NECC and DEPUTY WARDEN at NECC, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          E. RICHARD WEBBER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This matter comes before the Court on the motion of plaintiff King Solomon (inmate number 22387) for leave to commence this civil action without prepayment of the filing fee. ECF No. 2. While incarcerated, plaintiff has brought more than three 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 plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss plaintiff's complaint without prejudice.

         The Complaint

         Plaintiff is a pro se litigant currently incarcerated at the Northeast Correctional Center (“NECC”) in Bowling Green, Missouri. He brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, naming the Warden and Deputy Warden at NECC as defendants. It is difficult to discern plaintiff's ultimate claim, as his complaint consists mainly of declarative statements in which plaintiff assumes various titles and mantles of authority. For instance, plaintiff begins the statement of his claim by stating that he “would like to proclaim [his] Nationality and Divine Creed.” ECF No. 1 at 5. He asserts that he is “Prophet, Noble Drew Ali & the Sultan Abdul Aziz … Sand, who is Allah himself.” He further claims he is “the only ‘Journalist' in the whole world” and the “real ‘true and Divine Warden, as well as vestryman' in the world.” Plaintiff asks the Court why he cannot start working while incarcerated, stating that he will work for $101, 000 a month for any job. Id.

         For relief, plaintiff requests that the Court enforce “all of [his] laws” and “give” the defendants 2, 000 years for “impersonating” him and for “embezzlement” of his faith. Id. at 6. He further seeks damages in the amount of “$700, 707, 700 zillion dollars.” Id.

         Discussion

         Plaintiff seeks leave to commence this § 1983 action without prepayment of the required filing fee. He is a frequent filer who has had more than 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.

         A. Three Strikes Rule: 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)

         The 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). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner's ability to obtain in forma pauperis status is limited if he has filed at least three actions that have been dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim. Section 1915(g) provides in relevant part:

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 physical injury.

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).

         B. Plaintiff's Previous “Strikes”

         Based on a review of cases filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, plaintiff[1] has accumulated more than three strikes.[2] Based on these cases, the Western District has determined that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), plaintiff is not allowed to proceed in forma pauperis.[3] Plaintiff has filed over twenty 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).[4] In all of those cases, plaintiff's complaint was dismissed without prejudice.

         C. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.