United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. YANDLE U.S. District Judge.
action is before the Court to address Plaintiff's filing
fee requirements. The initial filing in this case (Doc. 1)
was construed as a § 1983 complaint and transferred
to the Southern District of Illinois on March 13, 2017. (Doc.
2). Plaintiff has since filed an Amended Complaint (Doc. 16)
which supersedes and replaces the original Complaint (Doc. 1)
and the Supplement to the Complaint (Doc. 8). Flannery v.
Recording Indus. Ass'n of Am., 354 F.3d 632, 638 n.1
(7th Cir. 2004).
has not paid a filing fee in this case, but did file a Motion
for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 27)
(“IFP”) on April 10, 2017. Because Plaintiff has
accumulated more than three “strikes” by filing
lawsuits that were dismissed for failure to state a claim or
raising frivolous claims,  he may not proceed IFP in this action
unless he faces imminent danger of serious physical injury.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). In order to make this
determination, the Court reviews the IFP motion and the
complaint. Here, neither supports a finding that Plaintiff
faces imminent danger of serious physical injury. Section
1915(g) therefore precludes Plaintiff from proceeding IFP and
Plaintiff must pay the filing fee before this case can
to Section 1915(g), a prisoner may not bring a civil action
or appeal a civil judgment 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).
has received strikes in at least three cases in this
district. See Garrett v. Attorney General of the State of
Illinois, Case No. 13-cv-1087-MJR (S.D. Ill., dismissed
January 21, 2014); Garrett v. Attorney General, Case
No. 13-cv-1196-JPG (S.D. Ill., dismissed Dec. 17, 2013);
Garrett v. State of Illinois, Case No.
13-cv-1298-JPG (S.D. Ill., dismissed Dec. 30, 2013). In fact,
because of his voluminous frivolous filings across the
country, Plaintiff has also been given warnings about filing
frivolous papers or actions by multiple courts, including
this one. See, e.g., Garrett v. Warden or
Sheriff of Illinois, Case No. 17-cv-100-DRH (S.D. Ill.,
dismissed Feb. 10, 2017) (Doc. 4, p. 5). Plaintiff was also
issued an Order to Show Cause in this District on March 22,
2017, requiring Plaintiff to show why the Court should not
find him in violation of Rule 11(b) and/or the Seventh
Circuit's warnings against filing further frivolous or
foreclosed claims and papers after striking out. Id.
(Doc. 22). Because Plaintiff has incurred more than three
“strikes” for purposes of Section 1915(g), he may
not proceed IFP in this case unless he is under imminent
danger of serious physical injury.
danger within the meaning of Section 1915(g) requires a
“real and proximate” threat of serious physical
injury to a prisoner. Ciarpaglini v. Saini, 352 F.3d
328, 330 (7th Cir. 2003) (citing Lewis v. Sullivan,
279 F.3d 526, 529 (7th Cir. 2002)). In general, courts
“deny leave to proceed IFP when a prisoner's claims
of imminent danger are conclusory or ridiculous.”
Id. at 331 (citing Heimermann v. Litscher,
337 F.3d 781, 782 (7th Cir. 2003)). Additionally,
“[a]llegations of past harm do not suffice” to
show imminent danger; rather, “the harm must be
imminent or occurring at the time the complaint is filed,
” and when prisoners “allege only a past injury
that has not recurred, courts deny them leave to proceed
IFP.” Id. at 330 (citing Abdul-Wadood v.
Nathan, 91 F.3d 1023 (7th Cir. 1996)).
does not claim to be in imminent danger in his Amended
Complaint or IFP Motion. (Docs. 16, 27). His main allegation
is that a large sum of money has not been deposited into his
prisoner trust fund account. (Doc. 16, pp. 1, 4-5). This
allegation fails to support a finding of imminent danger.
made no showing of imminent danger, Plaintiff will not be
permitted to proceed in forma pauperis - he is
obligated to pay the full filing fee of $400.00 for this
action. If Plaintiff wishes for the Court to proceed with a
28 U.S.C. § 1915A preliminary review of his Amended
Complaint, he must prepay the full amount of this filing fee
within thirty (30) days of this Order (on or before May 12,
HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall pay the full filing fee
of $400.00 for this action within thirty (30) days of the
date of entry of this Order (on or before May 12, 2017). If
Plaintiff fails to comply with this Order in the time
allotted by the Court, this case will be dismissed.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Ladien v.
Astrachan, 128 F.3d 1051, 1056-57 (7th Cir. 1997);
Johnson v. Kamminga, 34 F.3d 466, 468 (7th Cir.
1994). Plaintiff's obligation to pay the filing fee for
this action was incurred at the time the action was filed,
thus the filing fee for this case remains due and payable-and
will be collected one way or another. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(b)(1); Lucien v. Jockisch, 133 F.3d 464,
467 (7th Cir. 1998).
Plaintiff is ADVISED that he is under a continuing obligation
to keep the Clerk of Court informed of any change in his
address. This shall be done in writing and not later than 7
days after a transfer or other change in address occurs.
Failure to comply with this order will cause a delay in the
transmission of court documents. See Fed. R. Civ. P.