Rodney A. Campbell v. Judge Vince Johnson, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. Missouri
• Decided: May 6, 2026
• Docket: 4:26-cv-00588
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

RODNEY A. CAMPBELL, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 4:26-CV-00588 HEA ) JUDGE VINCE JOHNSON, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Rodney Campbell, a self-represented prisoner incarcerated at the St. Charles County Detention Center, alleges that he has been treated improperly by Judge Vince Johnson in St. Charles County Court. [ECF No. 1]. He seeks leave to pursue this action in forma pauperis. [ECF No. 4]. Because Plaintiff has accrued three strikes under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), the Court denies the request and orders him to pay the full $405 filing fee. The PLRA is designed to “filter out the bad [prisoner] claims and facilitate consideration of the good.” Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 204 (2007). One mechanism for doing so is the three- strikes provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Orr v. Clements, 688 F.3d 463, 464 (8th Cir. 2012). Section 1915(g) provides: In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding under this section if the prisoner 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). Plaintiff has filed numerous cases in this Court in the past six months, and at least three of Plaintiff’s prior lawsuits have been dismissed pursuant to § 1915(g). See Campbell v. St. Charles County Jail, et al., No. 4:25-cv-1902 ACL (E.D.Mo); Campbell v. St. Charles County Jail, et al., No. 4:26-cv-00152 HEA (E.D.Mo.); Campbell v. Madison County Jail, et al., No. 4:26-cv-00165

RHH (E.D.Mo.); and Campbell v. Campanga, et al., No. 4:25-cv-1901 JMB (E.D.Mo.). The Court takes judicial notice of these records. See Stutzka v. McCarville, 420 F.3d 757, 760 n.2 (8th Cir. 2005) (stating that courts “may take judicial notice of judicial opinions and public records”). Because Plaintiff has accumulated three strikes under § 1915(g), the Court cannot grant him leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this matter unless he “is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff does not assert that he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury in his complaint. Therefore, the Court denies his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis

[ECF No. 4] is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall pay the $405 filing fee within 21 days of the date of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's failure to comply with this Order will result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice and without further notice. Dated this 6" day of May, 2026.

HENRY EDWARD AUTREY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE