United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PERMISSION TO PROCEED IN
FORMA PAUPERIS AND SUMMARILY DISMISSING THE
A. GOLDSMITH United States District Judge.
Richmond Brown Taylor, a state prisoner at the Woodland
Center Correctional Facility in Whitmore Lake, Michigan,
recently filed a pro se complaint and request for appointment
of counsel and a psychiatric evaluation (Dkt. 1) Defendants
in this case are: (i) the Mental Health Services division of
the Michigan Department of Corrections; (ii) Jodi Deangelo,
Warden at the Woodland Center Correctional Facility; (iii)
Heidi Washington, Director of the Michigan Department of
Corrections; and (iv) Rick Snyder, Governor of Michigan.
Plaintiff alleges in his complaint that, on October 20, 2016,
he was forced to pack his property and go to a mental
hospital without any notice or an opportunity to challenge
the action. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants have
threatened to administer psychotropic medication to him, and
they have prevented him from filing any complaints against
prison officials. Plaintiff seeks money damages and a court
order directing Deangelo to stop psychiatrists from
administering psychotropic medication to him. For the reasons
given below, the Court summarily dismisses the complaint.
STANDARD OF DECISION
did not submit the filing fee for this action with his
complaint, and he claims that he should not be required to do
so because he is in imminent danger. A federal litigant who
is unable to pay court fees ordinarily “may commence a
civil action without prepaying fees or paying certain
expenses.” Coleman v. Tollefson, 135 S.Ct.
1759, 1761 (2015) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915).
a special “three strikes” provision prevents a
court from affording in forma pauperis status where the
litigant is a prisoner and he or she “has, on 3 or more
prior occasions, while incarcerated . . ., 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.”
Id. (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)).
exception to this rule applies when “the prisoner is
under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g). “The imminent danger exception
is essentially a pleading requirement subject to the ordinary
principles of notice pleading.” Vandiver v.
Vasbinder, 416 F. App'x 560, 562 (6th Cir. 2011).
“[T]o allege sufficiently imminent danger, . . .
‘the threat or prison condition must be real and
proximate and the danger of serious physical injury must
exist at the time the complaint is filed.'”
Vandiver v. Prison Health Servs., Inc., 727 F.3d
580, 585 (6th Cir. 2013) (quoting Rittner v. Kinder,
290 F. App'x 796, 797 (6th Cir. 2008)). Further,
[i]n addition to a temporal requirement, . . . the
allegations must be sufficient to allow a court to draw
reasonable inferences that the danger exists. To that end,
“district courts may deny a prisoner leave to proceed
pursuant to § 1915(g) when the prisoner's claims of
imminent danger are conclusory or ridiculous, or are clearly
baseless (i.e. are fantastic or delusional and rise to the
level of irrational or wholly incredible).”
than three of Plaintiff's previous complaints have been
dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim.
See Taylor v. Sampson, et al., No. 1:08-cv-00556
(W.D. Mich. July 25, 2008); Taylor v. Roberts, et
al., No. 2:06-cv-10846 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 20, 2006);
Taylor v. Theodore Levin U.S. Courthouse, et al.,
No. 2:06-cv-10073 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 7, 2006); Taylor v.
Yates, No. 2:05-cv-74696 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 8, 2006). In
still another case, a judge notified Plaintiff that he was
precluded from proceeding in forma pauperis because he has
“three strikes.” Taylor v. United States of
America, et al., No. 2:13-cv-00128 (W.D. Mich. Apr. 30,
2013). And in 2006, United States District Judge Patrick J.
Duggan ordered Plaintiff to seek leave of court before filing
any new cases in this District. See Taylor v. Ku Klux
Klan, et al., No. 2:06-11623 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 7, 2006).
invokes the “imminent danger” exception to the
“three strikes” rule, claiming that he was
illegally admitted to a mental health hospital and that
officials intend to inject him with psychotropic medication.
But “forced administration of medication does not
necessarily create an imminent danger of serious physical
injury.” Holbach v. North Dakota, et al., No.
3:13-cv-38, 2014 WL 295153, at *2 (D. N.D. Jan. 24, 2014)
Plaintiff has not identified the medication that the
defendants intend to administer. He also has not said what
the side effects of the medication are, and he has not
alleged that the medication will be administered without a
court order. Cf. Holbach, 2014 WL 295153, at *3. His
conclusory allegations, without any facts, details, or
supporting documentation, fail to demonstrate that he is in
imminent danger of serious injury.