DIARRA v. FOOD DRUG ADMINISTRATION

M.D. Georgia

DIARRA v. FOOD DRUG ADMINISTRATION

DecidedJanuary 31, 2022

Docket5:22-cv-00033

StatusUnknown

This text of DIARRA v. FOOD DRUG ADMINISTRATION (DIARRA v. FOOD DRUG ADMINISTRATION) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

DIARRA v. FOOD DRUG ADMINISTRATION, (M.D. Ga. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION

MOUSSA DIARRA, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : : No. 5:22-cv-33-TES-CHW FOOD AND DRUG : ADMINISTRATION; et al., : : Defendants. : _________________________________ :

ORDER

Plaintiff Moussa Diarra, a pretrial detainee in the DeKalb County Jail in Decatur, Georgia, has filed a civil action against the Food and Drug Administration, the States of Georgia and Florida, the United States, and the DeKalb County Jail. [ECF No. 1]. Because he has not paid the required filing fee ($402.00), the Court assumes Plaintiff wishes to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee. The Court finds, however, that Plaintiff may not proceed in forma pauperis because, as discussed below, this Court has dismissed at least three of Plaintiff’s prior lawsuits as frivolous. These dismissals, therefore, count as “strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff has made no credible allegations that show he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. [Id.]. The Court, therefore, dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint without Additionally, Plaintiff is ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS of the date of this Order why he should not be sanctioned under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for his repeated filing of frivolous complaints and

motions in this Court and abuse of judicial process. THREE-STRIKES DISMISSAL Federal law bars a prisoner 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.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Under § 1915(g), a prisoner incurs a “strike” any time a court dismisses the prisoner’s federal lawsuit or appeal on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or the prisoner failed to exhaust administrative remedies. See White v. Lemma, 947 F.3d 1373, 1379 (11th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted); Medberry v. Butler, 185 F.3d 1189, 1192 (11th Cir. 1999). Once a prisoner incurs three strikes, a court may not grant him leave to proceed in forma pauperis “unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Having reviewed court records on the Federal Judiciary’s Public Access to Court Electronic Records (“PACER”) database, the Court finds that Plaintiff has filed numerous federal lawsuits and, in this Court alone,1 ten of these lawsuits have been dismissed as frivolous.2 Accordingly, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) bars Plaintiff from prosecuting

this action in forma pauperis unless he “is in imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). To invoke 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. Brown v. Johnson, 387 F.3d 1344, 1349–50 (11th Cir. 2004). Plaintiff has made no credible allegations of imminent danger.

1 Plaintiff may have additional “strikes” because he has filed numerous lawsuits in the Northern District of Georgia, the Middle District of Florida, the Southern District of New York, and the District of Columbia District Court. The Court, however, need not look beyond its own docket to find more than three complaints that have been dismissed as frivolous.

2 See Order Dismissing Compl., Diarra v. Metro PCS, 5:21-cv-277-TES-CHW (M.D. Ga. Oct. 6, 2021) (dismissing complaint as frivolous), ECF No. 6; Order Dismissing Compl., Diarra v. Spivey, 5:21-cv-276-MTT-CHW (M.D. Ga. Aug. 24, 2021) (dismissing complaint as frivolous), ECF No. 8; Order Dismissing Comp., Diarra v. Trump, 5:21-cv-288-MTT- CHW (M.D. Ga. Aug. 23, 2021) (dismissing complaint as frivolous), ECF No. 4; Order Denying Mandamus and Dismissing Compl, Diarra v. Al-Furqaan Found., 5:21-cv-250- MTT-CHW (M.D. Ga. Aug. 5, 2021) (denying mandamus and dismissing as frivolous), ECF No. 4; Order Denying Mandamus and Dismissing Compl., Diarra v. Broadus, 5:21- cv-251-TES-CHW (M.D. Ga. Aug. 5, 2021) (denying mandamus and dismissing as frivolous); ECF No. 4; Diarra v. Soc. Sec’y Admin., 5:21-cv-252-TES-CHW (M.D. Ga. July 30, 2021) (dismissing complaint as frivolous), ECF No. 4; Order Dismissing Compl., Diarra v. Connolly, 5:21-cv-247-MTT-CHW (M.D. Ga. July 29, 2021) (dismissing complaint as frivolous), ECF No. 4; Order Dismissing Compl., Diarra v. FBI, 5:21-cv-253- TES-MSH (M.D. Ga. July 29, 2021) (dismissing complaint as frivolous), ECF No. 4; Order Dismissing Compl., Diarra v. ACCC Ins. Co., 5:21-cv-248-TES-CHW (M.D. Ga. July 27, 2021) (dismissing complaint as frivolous), ECF No. 4; Order Denying Mandamus and Dismissing Compl., Diarra v. Roc Nation, LLC, No. 4:21-cv-115-CDL-MSH (M.D. Ga. July 12, 2021) (denying mandamus and dismissing as frivolous), ECF No. 4. Instead, Plaintiff alleges that he is a Prince confined in the DeKalb County Jail. [ECF No. 1 at 1]. He complains that “DeKalb County in conjunction with U.S.

Government, Officer[s], Individuals, Businesses, Corporation[s], and Public Figures, Doctors, [and] Nurses has (sic) used deceptive means, conspiracy to commit serious crimes effecting (sic) [his] inner organs, stomach, and reproduction from making birth.”

[Id. at 2]. Presumably Plaintiff thinks the Food and Drug Administration and others are using the “jail facilit[ies] to tamper with food, [and] effect (sic) produce.” [Id. at 1]. While unclear, he seems to argue that unnamed entities are conducting “medical

surveillance for experiment,” engaging in “unlawful monitoring,” and employing “mind-reading devices” all in an effort to “tamper with [his] food and receive private gain for cooperation (sic).” [Id. at 2]. These allegations are delusional and do not show “imminent danger of serious physical injury.”3 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

In conclusion, the Court will not allow Plaintiff to proceed without prepayment of the $402.00 filing fee and, therefore, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s complaint

3 Even if the three-strikes provision in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) did not bar Plaintiff from proceeding without prepayment of the full filing fee, his complaint would be dismissed as frivolous because it contains fanciful, delusional allegations. without prejudice.4 Plaintiff’s motions (ECF Nos. 3; 4; 5) are DENIED as moot. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

This is far from the first civil action Plaintiff has filed in this Court.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI