United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER DISMISSING CASE
COHN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
a prisoner case. On June 10, 2019, plaintiff Johnnie Stanley,
a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a paper
Motion to Chief Judge Denise Page Hood for Evidentiary
Hearing in Connection to Plaintiff's Request for Rule
as can be gleaned, Stanley is seeking the disclosure of state
grand jury proceedings. The exhibits attached to his motion
indicate he pursued similar relief in state court and was
denied. It also appears that Stanley was convicted of drug
offenses in state court in 2002 and is currently incarcerated
based on those convictions.
Clerk's office designated it as a miscellaneous action
and assigned the matter to the undersigned. As will be
explained, Stanley is precluded from proceeding without
prepayment of the filing fee and he has also been enjoined
from filing papers without leave. Stanley did not pay the
filing fee nor seek leave. Accordingly, the case will be
Stanley did not prepay the filing fee for this action. The
Court therefore assumes that he wishes to proceed under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(b) without prepaying the filing fee.
Ordinarily, a federal litigant who is too poor to pay court
fees "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). But, as the Supreme Court explained in
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)). An exception
to this rule applies when "the prisoner is under
imminent danger of serious physical injury." 28 U.S.C.
three strikes rule is not an affirmative defense that must be
raised in the pleadings." Harris v. New York,
607 F.3d 18, 23 (2d Cir. 2010). Therefore, "a district
court can invoke § 1915(g) to dismiss a prisoner lawsuit
even if the three strikes rule has not been raised by the
defendant in the pleadings." Id.; see also
Witzke v. Hiller, 966 F.Supp. 538, 539 (E.D. Mich. 1997)
(dismissing the prisoner's complaint sua sponte under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g)).
least three of Stanley's previous complaints have been
summarily dismissed for failure to state a claim. See
Stanley v. Collins, No. 04-71098 (E.D. Mich. 2004);
Stanley v. Hand, 07-13114 (E.D. Mich. 2009);
Stanley v. Liebson, 09-12202 (E.D. Mich. 2012).
Furthermore, Stanley has not demonstrated that he was under
imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed this