Darryl McGore v. John Doe, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
• Decided: January 30, 2026
• Docket: 4:26-cv-10074
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

DARRYL MCGORE, Plaintiff, Case No. 26-10074 Honorable Shalina D. Kumar v. Magistrate Judge Curtis Ivy, Jr.

JOHN DOE, et al., Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE I. Introduction Plaintiff Darryl McGore, a Michigan prisoner proceeding without counsel, filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. McGore names three Michigan Department of Corrections employees as defendants, alleging they permitted an individual to steal one of his books, valued at $ 225.00. He seeks reimbursement for the book’s value, as well as punitive and nominal damages.1 McGore did not pay the required filing and administrative fees for this case when he filed his complaint. Instead, he

1 McGore asks for punitive damages of “15 packs of dark chocolate cookies and 21 BBQ Chips from the…vend[o]r machine.” ECF No. 1, PageID.8. He also seeks the following nominal damages: “8 bags of cheese Doritos 1 ear bud set and 1 used footlocker…or a radio or large boom box radio…” Id. submitted a prison trust fund account statement, which the Court construes as a request to proceed without prepayment of fees or costs.

Upon review of the complaint and McGore’s litigation history in the federal courts, the Court concludes that the complaint must be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

II. Discussion The Court may authorize commencement of an action without prepayment of the filing fee and costs if a plaintiff demonstrates he cannot pay such fees, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), subject to the Prison Litigation

Reform Act’s (PLRA) three-strikes rule. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Under the three-strikes rule, a prisoner may not proceed in forma pauperis where, on three or more previous occasions, a federal court dismissed the

incarcerated plaintiff’s action because it was frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim for which relief may be granted unless the prisoner “is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); see Gresham v. Meden, 938 F.3d 847, 849 (6th Cir. 2019) (“To be eligible for

the exception [to the three-strikes rule], the prisoner must plausibly allege such a danger.”); see also Vandiver v. Prison Health Servs., Inc., 727 F.3d 580, 585 (6th Cir. 2013) (“In order to allege sufficiently imminent danger,

we have held that ‘the threat ... must be real and proximate and the danger of serious physical injury must exist at the time the complaint is filed.’ ” (quoting Rittner v. Kinder, 290 F. App'x 796, 797 (6th Cir. 2008)). “Courts

may sua sponte apply the three-strikes rule…and take judicial notice of a plaintiff’s prior dismissals.” White v. Sturm, 737 F. Supp.3d 576, 578 (E.D. Mich. 2024) (citations omitted).

McGore is a frequent litigant with a history of meritless filings. He has had more than three civil rights cases dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim. See McGore v. Hudson, No. 1:98-cv-10080 (E.D. Mich. June 2, 1998); McGore v. Hunter, No. 2:96- cv-74326 (E.D.

Mich. Oct. 15, 1996); McGore v. Hunter, No. 2:96-cv-74327 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 10, 1997); McGore v. Jones, No. 2:96-cv-74614 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 8, 1996); McGore v. Mich. Supreme Court Judges, No. 1:94-cv-517, 1995

U.S. App. 3 LEXIS 35444; McGore v. Nardi, No. 2:93-cv-137 (W.D. Mich. Aug. 2, 1993); McGore v. Stine, No. 2:93-cv-112 (W.D. Mich. July 26, 1993); McGore v. Stine, No. 2:93-cv-77 (W.D. Mich. Apr. 30, 1993). McGore is well aware that he has accumulated “three strikes” under 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g) because he has been denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis on that basis many times. See McGore v. United States Supreme Court Justices, No. 2:19-cv-244, 2019 WL 6799099 at *2, 2019 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 214825 at *4 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 13, 2019) (stating that “Plaintiff previously has been denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis on more than 50 occasions for having three strikes”).

McGore, therefore, cannot proceed in forma pauperis unless he satisfies the imminent danger exception to the three strikes rule. McGore does not allege any facts to suggest that he is in imminent danger of

serious physical harm. He references an imminent danger several times throughout his complaint, but the alleged danger concerns the risk of financial loss, not physical danger. The statute does not provide an exception to the three strikes rule for monetary loss. Accordingly, McGore

may not proceed in forma pauperis. III. Conclusion McGore has filed at least three previous lawsuits that were dismissed

as frivolous or for failure to state a claim, and his claim of imminent financial loss is insufficient to invoke the exception set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Accordingly, the Court DENIES McGore leave to proceed without

prepayment of fees or costs and DISMISSES his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). This dismissal is without prejudice to the filing of a new complaint with full payment of required filing and administrative fees. Further, the Court concludes that it has properly applied the “three strikes” rule of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) such that an appeal from this ruling

would be frivolous and cannot be taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). This case is closed. IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Shalina D. Kumar SHALINA D. KUMAR United States District Judge Dated: January 30, 2026