Brown v. Reheal

• Court: District Court, E.D. Tennessee
• Decided: August 5, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-00370
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

RICKY FLAMINGO BROWN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No.: 3:25-CV-370-TAV-DCP ) TANNER REHEAL, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Ricky Flamingo Brown, a prisoner incarcerated at the Northwest Correctional Complex who is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 [Doc. 2], has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. 1]. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s motion [Id.] should be denied and this action dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff’s ability to pay the $405.00 filing fee in full and thereby reinstate this case. I. LAW AND ANALYSIS The resolution of Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is guided by what is commonly referred to as the “three strikes” provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). This provision provides that an inmate may not proceed in forma pauperis in a civil action if, as a prisoner, he has filed three or more cases that a court dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless “[he] is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff acknowledges that he has had cases previously dismissed based on the three strikes rule [Doc. 2, p. 13; Doc. 2-2]. And the Court confirms that Plaintiff has previously filed at least three cases as a prisoner that were dismissed as frivolous. See, e.g., Brown v.

Powell, No. 2:09-CV-63 (E.D. Tenn. June 9, 2009) (dismissing complaint pursuant to three strikes rule and noting plaintiff had previously filed numerous cases that were dismissed as frivolous); Brown v. Perry, No. 1:17-CV-1036 (W.D. Tenn. Mar. 21, 2018) (denying plaintiff’s motion to proceed as a pauper and listing five cases Plaintiff had previously filed that were dismissed as frivolous). Therefore, Plaintiff cannot file the instant suit, or any

future suit, as a pauper unless he can demonstrate that he is in imminent danger of serious physical harm. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). To avail himself to the “imminent danger” exception under § 1915(g), Plaintiff’s complaint must contain “a plausible allegation that the prisoner faced ‘imminent danger of serious physical injury’ at the time of filing.” Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1055

(9th Cir. 2007). Here, Plaintiff’s complaint alleges past harm; it does not allege that he is currently in imminent danger of serious physical injury. Therefore, Plaintiff is not entitled to the emergency intervention envisioned by the three-strikes exception to the PLRA. II. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s motion1 to proceed in forma pauperis

[Doc. 1] is DENIED pursuant to § 1915(g), and the instant action will be DISMISSED without prejudice to Plaintiff’s ability to pay the $405.00 filing fee in full and thereby

1 The Court notes that the motion is also deficient, as it is not accompanied by the required inmate trust account statement for the previous six months. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). reinstate this case. See In re Alea, 286 F.3d 378, 381 (6th Cir. 2002) (noting that prisoner’s obligation to pay filing fee arises when complaint delivered to district court clerk). Accordingly, this case will be CLOSED.

Finally, the Court CERTIFIES that any appeal from this decision would not be taken in good faith and would be totally frivolous, such that any request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on any subsequent appeal will be DENIED. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 24. AN APPROPRIATE JUDGMENT ORDER WILL ENTER.

s/ Thomas A. Varlan UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE