IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION
DENVER FENTON ALLEN, : : Plaintiff, : : VS. : NO. 5:25-CV-00186-TES-AGH : WORLD CLASS ACTION : ALL SEVEN CONTINENTS, et al., : : Defendants. : ________________________________ :
DISMISSAL ORDER Pro se Plaintiff Denver Fenton Allen, a prisoner incarcerated at the Georgia Diagnostic & Classification Prison in Jackson, Georgia, has filed a complaint under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). ECF No. 1. Plaintiff has not paid a filing fee. Therefore, the Court reasons Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. However, Plaintiff has three strikes under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, so he may not proceed in forma pauperis. Leave to proceed in forma pauperis is therefore DENIED, and this complaint is DISMISSED for the reasons set forth below. Furthermore, because Plaintiff’s complaint does not state a right to any recognizable relief and contains frivolous allegations, this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. I. DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner is barred from bringing a civil action in federal court in forma pauperis if [he] 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.
This is known as the “three strikes provision.” A prisoner incurs a “strike” any time he has a federal lawsuit or appeal dismissed on the grounds that it is (1) frivolous, (2) malicious, or (3) fails to state a claim. See Medberry v. Butler, 185 F.3d 1189, 1192 (11th Cir. 1999); see also Daker v. Comm’r, Ga. Dep’t of Corr., 820 F.3d 1278, 1283-84 (11th Cir. 2016) (confirming that “these three grounds are the only grounds that can render a dismissal a strike”). Once a prisoner incurs three strikes, his ability to proceed in forma pauperis in federal court is greatly limited: leave to proceed in forma pauperis may not be granted unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. Medberry, 185 F.3d at 1192. A review of court records on the Federal Judiciary’s Public Access to Court Electronic Records (“PACER”) database reveals that Plaintiff has filed numerous federal lawsuits and at least three of his complaints or appeals have been dismissed as frivolous or malicious or for failure to state a claim. See, e.g., Order Dismissing Compl., Allen v. Milsap, Case No. 4:12-cv-290-HLM-WEJ (N.D. Ga. Jan. 2, 2013), ECF No. 6
(dismissing case as “wholly incredible” and “frivolous”); Order Dismissing Compl., Allen v. Owens, Case No. 1:12-cv-143-JRH-WLB (S.D. Ga. Dec. 5, 2012), ECF No. 9 (adopting recommendation to dismiss for failure to state claim); Order Dismissing Compl., Allen v. Brown, Case No. 1:12-cv-52-JRH-WLB (S.D. Ga. Apr. 1, 2013), ECF No. 29 (dismissing for abuse of judicial process and failing to state a claim). Plaintiff is accordingly barred from prosecuting this action in forma pauperis
unless he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). To qualify for this exception, a prisoner must allege specific facts that describe an “ongoing serious physical injury,” or “a pattern of misconduct evidencing the likelihood of imminent serious physical injury.” Sutton v. Dist. Attorney’s Office, 334 Fed. App’x 278, 279 (11th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted). Complaints of past injuries are not sufficient. See Medberry, 185 F.3d at 1193. Vague
and unsupported claims of possible dangers likewise do not suffice. See White v. State of Colo., 157 F.3d 1226, 1231 (10th Cir. 1998). The exception to § 1915(g) is to be applied only in “genuine emergencies,” when (1) “time is pressing,” (2) the “threat or prison condition is real and proximate,” and (3) the “potential consequence is serious physical injury.” Lewis v. Sullivan, 279 F.3d 526, 531 (7th Cir. 2002).
Nowhere in Plaintiff’s complaint does he provide any specific or nonfrivolous facts suggesting that he is in imminent danger of suffering any serious physical injury. Indeed, much of Plaintiff’s complaint is illegible and indecipherable gibberish. See ECF No. 1. A complaint that cannot be clearly read is subject to dismissal. See, e.g., Jackson v. Santa Rosa Corr. Inst., No. 3:23CV11741-LC-HTC, 2023 WL 6305812, at
*2 (N.D. Fla. Sept. 13, 2023), report and recommendation adopted, No. 3:23CV11741- LC-HTC, 2023 WL 6299097 (N.D. Fla. Sept. 27, 2023); Scibelli v. Lebanon County, 219 F. App’x 221, 222 (3d Cir. 2007) (affirming dismissal of a complaint which was “exceptionally difficult to understand and in many instances either illegible or incomprehensible”) (internal quotations and alteration omitted). As such, Plaintiff will not be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to § 1915(g), and his Complaint
should be dismissed without prejudice to his right to refile with pre-payment of the full $405 filing fee. See Dupree v. Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234, 1236 (11th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (“[T]he proper procedure is for the district court to dismiss the complaint without prejudice when it denies the prisoner leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to the three strikes provision of § 1915(g).”).
II. DISMISSAL AS FRIVOLOUS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), a federal court is required to conduct an initial screening of a complaint “in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.” Section 1915A(b) requires a federal court to dismiss a prisoner complaint that is: (1) “frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted”; or (2) “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief.” A claim is frivolous when it appears from the face of the complaint that the factual allegations are “clearly baseless” or that the legal theories are “indisputably meritless.” Carroll v. Gross, 984 F.2d 392, 393 (11th Cir. 1993). A claim can be dismissed as malicious if it is knowingly duplicative or otherwise amounts to an abuse of the judicial process. Daker v. Ward, 999 F.3d 1300, 1308, 1310 (11th Cir.
2021) (affirming dismissal of duplicative complaint “in light of [prisoner’s] history as a prolific serial filer”). A complaint fails to state a claim when it does not include “enough factual matter (taken as true)” to “give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests[.]” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION
DENVER FENTON ALLEN, : : Plaintiff, : : VS. : NO. 5:25-CV-00186-TES-AGH : WORLD CLASS ACTION : ALL SEVEN CONTINENTS, et al., : : Defendants. : ________________________________ :
DISMISSAL ORDER Pro se Plaintiff Denver Fenton Allen, a prisoner incarcerated at the Georgia Diagnostic & Classification Prison in Jackson, Georgia, has filed a complaint under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). ECF No. 1. Plaintiff has not paid a filing fee. Therefore, the Court reasons Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. However, Plaintiff has three strikes under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, so he may not proceed in forma pauperis. Leave to proceed in forma pauperis is therefore DENIED, and this complaint is DISMISSED for the reasons set forth below. Furthermore, because Plaintiff’s complaint does not state a right to any recognizable relief and contains frivolous allegations, this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. I. DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner is barred from bringing a civil action in federal court in forma pauperis if [he] 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.
This is known as the “three strikes provision.” A prisoner incurs a “strike” any time he has a federal lawsuit or appeal dismissed on the grounds that it is (1) frivolous, (2) malicious, or (3) fails to state a claim. See Medberry v. Butler, 185 F.3d 1189, 1192 (11th Cir. 1999); see also Daker v. Comm’r, Ga. Dep’t of Corr., 820 F.3d 1278, 1283-84 (11th Cir. 2016) (confirming that “these three grounds are the only grounds that can render a dismissal a strike”). Once a prisoner incurs three strikes, his ability to proceed in forma pauperis in federal court is greatly limited: leave to proceed in forma pauperis may not be granted unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. Medberry, 185 F.3d at 1192. A review of court records on the Federal Judiciary’s Public Access to Court Electronic Records (“PACER”) database reveals that Plaintiff has filed numerous federal lawsuits and at least three of his complaints or appeals have been dismissed as frivolous or malicious or for failure to state a claim. See, e.g., Order Dismissing Compl., Allen v. Milsap, Case No. 4:12-cv-290-HLM-WEJ (N.D. Ga. Jan. 2, 2013), ECF No. 6
(dismissing case as “wholly incredible” and “frivolous”); Order Dismissing Compl., Allen v. Owens, Case No. 1:12-cv-143-JRH-WLB (S.D. Ga. Dec. 5, 2012), ECF No. 9 (adopting recommendation to dismiss for failure to state claim); Order Dismissing Compl., Allen v. Brown, Case No. 1:12-cv-52-JRH-WLB (S.D. Ga. Apr. 1, 2013), ECF No. 29 (dismissing for abuse of judicial process and failing to state a claim). Plaintiff is accordingly barred from prosecuting this action in forma pauperis
unless he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). To qualify for this exception, a prisoner must allege specific facts that describe an “ongoing serious physical injury,” or “a pattern of misconduct evidencing the likelihood of imminent serious physical injury.” Sutton v. Dist. Attorney’s Office, 334 Fed. App’x 278, 279 (11th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted). Complaints of past injuries are not sufficient. See Medberry, 185 F.3d at 1193. Vague
and unsupported claims of possible dangers likewise do not suffice. See White v. State of Colo., 157 F.3d 1226, 1231 (10th Cir. 1998). The exception to § 1915(g) is to be applied only in “genuine emergencies,” when (1) “time is pressing,” (2) the “threat or prison condition is real and proximate,” and (3) the “potential consequence is serious physical injury.” Lewis v. Sullivan, 279 F.3d 526, 531 (7th Cir. 2002).
Nowhere in Plaintiff’s complaint does he provide any specific or nonfrivolous facts suggesting that he is in imminent danger of suffering any serious physical injury. Indeed, much of Plaintiff’s complaint is illegible and indecipherable gibberish. See ECF No. 1. A complaint that cannot be clearly read is subject to dismissal. See, e.g., Jackson v. Santa Rosa Corr. Inst., No. 3:23CV11741-LC-HTC, 2023 WL 6305812, at
*2 (N.D. Fla. Sept. 13, 2023), report and recommendation adopted, No. 3:23CV11741- LC-HTC, 2023 WL 6299097 (N.D. Fla. Sept. 27, 2023); Scibelli v. Lebanon County, 219 F. App’x 221, 222 (3d Cir. 2007) (affirming dismissal of a complaint which was “exceptionally difficult to understand and in many instances either illegible or incomprehensible”) (internal quotations and alteration omitted). As such, Plaintiff will not be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to § 1915(g), and his Complaint
should be dismissed without prejudice to his right to refile with pre-payment of the full $405 filing fee. See Dupree v. Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234, 1236 (11th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (“[T]he proper procedure is for the district court to dismiss the complaint without prejudice when it denies the prisoner leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to the three strikes provision of § 1915(g).”).
II. DISMISSAL AS FRIVOLOUS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), a federal court is required to conduct an initial screening of a complaint “in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.” Section 1915A(b) requires a federal court to dismiss a prisoner complaint that is: (1) “frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted”; or (2) “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief.” A claim is frivolous when it appears from the face of the complaint that the factual allegations are “clearly baseless” or that the legal theories are “indisputably meritless.” Carroll v. Gross, 984 F.2d 392, 393 (11th Cir. 1993). A claim can be dismissed as malicious if it is knowingly duplicative or otherwise amounts to an abuse of the judicial process. Daker v. Ward, 999 F.3d 1300, 1308, 1310 (11th Cir.
2021) (affirming dismissal of duplicative complaint “in light of [prisoner’s] history as a prolific serial filer”). A complaint fails to state a claim when it does not include “enough factual matter (taken as true)” to “give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests[.]” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007) (noting that “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level,” and that the complaint “must contain something more . . .
than . . . a statement of facts that merely creates a suspicion [of] a legally cognizable right of action”) (internal quotations and citations omitted); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (explaining that “threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice”). In making the above determinations, all factual allegations in the complaint must be viewed as true. Brown v. Johnson, 387 F.3d 1344, 1347 (11th Cir. 2004). Moreover, “[p]ro se pleadings are held
to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed.” Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998). Here, Plaintiff lists over forty Defendants including “all 7 continents”. ECF No. 1 at 1, 5, and 9; ECF No. 1-1 at 1. As previously stated, much of Plaintiff’s complaint is
illegible but from the portions the Court can decipher, some of the relief Plaintiff seeks include damages of “$500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000”, a “full pardon & release from prison”, criminal charges against every employee from every prison where he has ever been housed, “Corleone copyright over all FDA”, “World Health Org. liquidation”, “all major Govt. owned stock market all 7 continents”, and
“sole proprietorship, liquidation, rebuttal & copyrights, oversuch, major corporate holder shares”. ECF No. 1 at 2, 17, and 19. Among Plaintiff’s claims is “[to] stop smash - audio feed cops on floor”, “MD’s, specialist from all 7 continents falsify med. records, refuse proper treatment, inflict med. damages poison & drug food, over-dose psychotropic drugs”, “a human smash racket to Italy mob”, and “call a dog on 19 r you on Viagra some sort of hormone enhancer on food paid by a cartel hit” Id. at 3, 5, and 11. The liberal construction that applies to pro se pleadings cannot serve as a
substitute for establishing a cause of action, and if the Court determines that the factual allegations in a complaint are “clearly baseless” the complaint should be dismissed as frivolous. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). Examples of “clearly baseless” factual allegations are those “describing fantastic or delusional scenarios.” Id. at 328; Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992) (citing Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325-28)
(stating that a court may dismiss a claim as factually frivolous if the facts alleged are clearly baseless, fanciful, fantastic, or delusional). The violations of which Plaintiff complains and the relief he seeks are predicated upon allegations that are “fanciful, fantastic, irrational, and/or delusional.” See Porter v. Governor of the State of Fla., 667 F. App’x 766, 767 (11th Cir. 2016) (citing Denton, 504
U.S. at 32-33). Thus, even when construed liberally and in his favor, Plaintiff’s complaint is “without arguable merit either in law or fact”, fails to satisfy the minimal standards of rationality required at the preliminary screening stage, and is subject to immediate dismissal. Bilal v. Driver, 251 F.3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir. 2001); Gray v. U.S. Government, 540 F. App’x 916, 917 (11th Cir. 2013) (citing Denton, 504 U.S. at 32-33).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE1 as frivolous
1 The Court realizes that dismissal with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A is “an extreme sanction to be exercised only in appropriate cases.” Camp v. Oliver, 798 F.2d 434, 438 (11th Cir. 1986). This is an “appropriate case[].” Id. This case qualifies for such treatment because Plaintiff’s allegations are “clearly baseless and without arguable under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff may not proceed in forma pauperis in this action and this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. SO ORDERED, this 15th day of May, 2025. S/ Tilman E. Self, III_______________ TILMAN E. SELF, III, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
merit in fact” and are therefore frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). See Trevino v. Florida, 687 F. App'x 861, 862 (11th Cir. 2017); Jordan v. Cent. Intel. Agency, No. 5:18- cv-455 (MTT), ECF No. 4 (M.D. Ga. Dec. 5, 2018) (quoting Bey v. Sec’y, U.S. State Dep’t, 2018 WL 3135153, at *3 (M.D. Fla. 2018)). Furthermore, District courts have the inherent power to dismiss sua sponte frivolous suits without giving notice to the parties. See Jefferson Fourteenth Assocs. v. Wometco de P.R., Inc., 695 F2d 524, 526, 526 n.3 (11th Cir. 1983); Henry v. Fernandez-Rundle, 773 F. App'x 596, 597 (11th Cir. 2019); Davis v. Kvalheim, 261 F. App’x 231, 235 (11th Cir. 2008)).