United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Northern Division
OPINION DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS - THREE STRIKES
ROBERT HOLMES BELL, District Judge.
Plaintiff Johnny Dar Eagle, a prisoner incarcerated at Chippewa Correctional Facility, filed an appeal to the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Because Plaintiff has filed at least three lawsuits which were dismissed as frivolous, he is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis on appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The court will order Plaintiff to pay the $505.00 filing fee on appeal within twenty-eight days of this opinion and accompanying order, and if Plaintiff fails to do so, his appeal may be dismissed without prejudice.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996), which was enacted on April 26, 1996, amended the procedural rules governing a prisoner's request for the privilege of proceeding in forma pauperis. As the Sixth Circuit has stated, the PLRA was "aimed at the skyrocketing numbers of claims filed by prisoners - many of which are meritless - and the corresponding burden those filings have placed on the federal courts." Hampton v. Hobbs, 106 F.3d 1281, 1286 (6th Cir. 1997). For that reason, Congress put into place economic incentives to prompt a prisoner to "stop and think" before filing a complaint. Id. For example, a prisoner is liable for the civil action filing fee, and if the prisoner qualifies to proceed in forma pauperis, the prisoner may pay the fee through partial payments as outlined in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). The constitutionality of the fee requirements of the PLRA has been upheld by the Sixth Circuit. Id. at 1288.
In addition, another provision reinforces the "stop and think" aspect of the PLRA by preventing a prisoner from proceeding in forma pauperis when the prisoner repeatedly files meritless lawsuits. Known as the "three-strikes" rule, the provision states:
In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding under [the section governing proceedings in forma pauperis ] 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.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
The statutory restriction "[i]n no event, " found in § 1915(g), is express and unequivocal. The statute does allow an exception for a prisoner who is "under imminent danger of serious physical injury." The Sixth Circuit has upheld the constitutionality of the "three-strikes" rule against arguments that it violates equal protection, the right of access to the courts, and due process, and that it constitutes a bill of attainder and is ex post facto legislation. Wilson v. Yaklich, 148 F.3d 596, 604-06 (6th Cir. 1998); accord Pointer v. Wilkinson, 502 F.3d 369, 377 (6th Cir. 2007) (citing Wilson, 148 F.3d at 604-06); Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1178-82 (9th Cir. 1999); Rivera v. Allin, 144 F.3d 719, 723-26 (11th Cir. 1998); Carson v. Johnson, 112 F.3d 818, 821-22 (5th Cir. 1997).
Plaintiff has been an active litigant in the federal courts in Michigan. Prior to the filing of Plaintiff's appeal, the court entered dismissals for failure to state a claim in four of Plaintiff's lawsuits. See Johnny Dar Eagle v. Michigan Department of Corrections, Case No. 1:08-cv-200; Johnny Dar Eagle v. Michigan State Industries, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-69; Johnny Dar Eagle v. M. Quinn, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-70, and Johnny Dar Eagle v. Aramark, Case No. 2:14-cv-193. Furthermore, Plaintiff's allegations do not fall within the exception to the three strikes rule, because he does not allege any facts establishing that he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
In light of the foregoing, Section 1915(g) prohibits Plaintiff from proceeding in forma pauperis in this appeal. An order consistent with this ...