United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
KENNADO K. TAYLOR, Plaintiff,
TAMMI CRAIG, LORI DAMMERMANN, CASEY TERRENCE, DENNIS SCHNOEKER, JEFF DANCY, JOHN DOE, BRYAN, and SARA THOMAS, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. ROSENSTENGEL, CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Kennado K. Taylor, an apparent pretrial detainee currently
detained at Chester Mental Health Center
(“Chester”), brings this action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 claiming imminent danger of serious
physical injury. According to the Complaint, Defendants are
retaliating against him for filing a previous lawsuit by
failing to provide for his physical safety and medical
treatment for injuries. He seeks monetary
case is now before the Court for preliminary review of the
Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires the
Court to screen prisoner complaints to filter out
nonmeritorious claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Any portion
of the Complaint that is legally frivolous or malicious,
fails to state a claim for relief, or requests money damages
from an immune defendant must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b). Along with the Complaint, Taylor filed a Motion for
Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP
Motion”). (Doc. 2). Before screening the Complaint, the
Court must first address Taylor's eligibility for IFP
status. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
Forma Pauperis Motion
1915(g) prohibits a prisoner from bringing a civil action or
appealing a civil judgment IFP, “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. §
Public Access to Court Electronic Records
(“PACER”) website (www.pacer.gov) reveals that
Taylor has had three other cases dismissed with prejudice on
the basis that his claims were barred by the doctrine of
res judicata, and two cases dismissed for failure to
state a claim. See Taylor v. Doe, et al., No.
17-cv-2347 (N.D. Ill. dismissed June 2, 2017); Taylor v.
Doe, et al., No. 17-cv-2348 (N.D. Ill. dismissed June 2,
2017); Taylor v. Doe, et al., No. 17-cv-2349 (N.D.
Ill. dismissed June 5, 2017); Taylor v. Doe, et al.,
No. 17-cv-5537 (N.D. Ill. dismissed September 22, 2017);
Taylor v. Doe, et al., No. 17-cv-6001 (N.D. Ill.
dismissed September 22, 2017); see also Walker v.
Page, 59 Fed.Appx. 896, 900 (7th Cir. 2003) (granting
the plaintiff a “strike” under the PLRA for
bringing an action barred by res judicata). Thus, Taylor has
accumulated five “strikes” for purposes of
Section 1915(g), and he cannot proceed IFP unless he is under
imminent danger of serious physical injury. 28 U.S.C. §
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)). 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 [as a pauper].”
Id. at 330 (citing Abdul-Wadood v. Nathan,
91 F.3d 1023 (7th Cir. 1996)).
Taylor states that he is in imminent danger because other
inmates are continually trying to fight him, and he is being
beaten by staff member John Doe. He also claims that he has
serious physical injuries that remain untreated. (Doc. 1, pp.
6-7). Because Taylor claims that his physical injuries are
current and ongoing, his IFP Motion will be
GRANTED. The initial partial filing fee and
payment scheme will be set forth in a separate order.
Court further notes that in the Complaint, Taylor indicates
he has filed previous lawsuits in federal court, but states
that he does not have copies of the dockets, and thus, he
does not have the case numbers to provide a list. (Doc. 1, p.
5). He does not, however, inform the Court that he has
received over three strikes under Section 1915(g) or that he
has filed over fifty civil cases in various federal courts
within the Seventh Circuit. In a previous civil case filed
this year by Taylor in this Court, he not only disclosed that
he had three strikes, but the Court also informed Taylor that
he has had five strikes and provided him a list of the cases.
Taylor v. Dammerann, No. 19-cv-00497 (S.D. Ill. May
15, 2019) (Doc. 4-order dismissing IFP motion). Taylor is
therefore WARNED that any future failure to
disclose his litigation history or provide the Court with
misrepresentations or fraudulent information, particularly
when he seeks to proceed IFP, may result in sanctions,
including fines and immediate dismissal of the suit.
Hoskins v. Dart, 633 F.3d 541, 543 (7th Cir. 2011)
(dismissal with prejudice appropriate where Court-issued
complaint form clearly warned Taylor that failure to provide
litigation history would result in dismissal); Ammons v.
Gerlinger, 547 F.3d 724, 725 (7th Cir. 2008)
(termination of suit is an appropriate sanction for
struck-out prisoner who took advantage of court's
oversight and was granted leave to proceed IFP); Sloan v.
Lesza, 181 F.3d 857, 858-59 (7th Cir. 1999) (litigant
who sought and obtained leave to proceed IFP without
disclosing his three-strike status committed a fraud upon the
alleges that he has been involved in more than ten fights
with other inmates, and they continue to try to fight him. He
is also repeatedly being beaten by staff member John Doe.
(Doc. 1, pp. 6-7). On November 26, 2019, Taylor alleges that
he told staff at Chester that his life was in danger, but
they refused to protect him. He also has a broken hand that
remains untreated, causing him excruciating pain. Taylor
claims that Defendants are not providing him protection for
his safety and medical treatment in retaliation for filing a
previous lawsuit. (Id. at p. 7).
on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds it
convenient to designate the claims in ...