Lee v. Craft

• Court: District Court, E.D. Louisiana
• Decided: April 4, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00436
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

WENDOLYN LEE CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 25-0436

JUDGE CHRIS CRAFT, ET AL. SECTION “D”(4)

ORDER AND REASONS

Plaintiff Wendolyn Lee (“Lee”) is a prisoner incarcerated in the Turney Center Industrial Complex in Only, Tennessee. ECF No. 3, ¶II(A), at 3. Lee filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Shelby County Judge Chris Craft, Shelby County Assistant District Attorney Amy Weirich, Memphis Police Officer Carrolyn Bryant, and Memphis attorney Ross Sampson challenging his detention and prior criminal proceedings in Memphis, Tennessee. Id. With his complaint, Lee submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. ECF No. 4. This motion is a non-dispositive pretrial matter which was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to Local Rule 72.1(B)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (“PLRA”), codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), provides that a prisoner shall not be allowed to bring a civil action pursuant to § 1915 if he has, on three 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 as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. Lee is a frequent filer of civil actions in the federal courts while he has been incarcerated. He has filed numerous civil actions in both Louisiana and Tennessee similar to the complaint filed in this case. At least three of his prior cases were dismissed as frivolous and/or for failure to state a claim. This Court and the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, Western Division, have determined that Lee is now barred from proceeding as a pauper because he now has at least three strikes under § 1915(g). See Ray, et al. v. Craft, No. 21-2383, ECF No. 14, at *2-3 (E.D. La. Mar. 9, 2022) (Order denying pauper application); Lee v. Craft, No. 21-2774, ECF No. 11 (W.D. Tenn. Jan. 5, 2022) (Order denying pauper application); Lee v. Craft, No. 22- 0989, ECF No. 5 (E.D. La. May 9, 2022) (Order denying pauper application).

Among Lee’s cases qualifying as strikes under § 1915(g) are: Lee v. Craft, No. 21-2136, 2021 WL 1030236 (W.D. Tenn. Mar. 17, 2021) (dismissed for failure to state a claim); Lee v. Craft, No. 20-2424, 2021 WL 918767 (W.D. Tenn. Mar. 10, 2021) (dismissed for failure to state a claim); Young, et al. v. Weirich, No. 18-2157, 2018 WL 6173897, at *2-3 (W.D. Tenn. Nov. 26, 2018) (dismissed for failure to state a claim), aff’d, No. 19-5012, 2019 WL 2897530 (6th Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 265 (2019). The Western District of Tennessee has issued numerous other sanctions orders against Lee because of his frivolous and abusive filings in the federal district courts, including his filings in the Eastern District of Louisiana. See, e.g., Lee v. Craft, No. 21-2367, ECF No. 9, at 3 (W.D.

Tenn. Jun. 8. 2021); Lee v. Craft, No. 21-2774, ECF No. 11, at 3 (W.D. Tenn. Jan. 5, 2022). In that Court’s initial sanctions order issued June 8, 2021, it expressly warned Lee that his filing of a civil action “in another court that should have been properly filed in this district and that is thereafter removed or transferred to this district will result in the same sanctions as if Lee had filed it here initially.” Lee, No. 21-2367, ECF No. 9, at 6. Because of Lee’s prior frivolous dismissals, he cannot proceed as a pauper in this action unless he fits within the “imminent danger” exception of § 1915(g). To establish imminent danger of serious physical injury, the danger must be ongoing and exist at the time of filing the complaint; allegations of past harms or dangers do not suffice. Cloud v. Stotts, 455 F. App’x 534, 534-35 (Sth Cir. 2011); Banos v. O’Guin, 144 F.3d 883, 884 (Sth Cir. 1998); Comeaux v. Broom, No. 11- 110, 2012 WL 4739576, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Sep. 14, 2012). Lee has not alleged, nor does his complaint demonstrate, that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. Therefore, Lee is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to the provisions of § 1915(g). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Wendolyn Lee’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 4) is DENIED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). New Orleans, Louisiana this 4th day of April, 2025.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRA DGE