Stockton v. Payne

• Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas
• Decided: June 18, 2025
• Docket: 4:25-cv-00196
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION

JOSHUA STOCKTON PLAINTIFF ADC #169885

V. NO. 4:25-cv-00196-LPR-ERE

DEXTER PAYNE, et al. DEFENDANTS

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION I. Procedures for Filing Objections: This Recommendation has been sent to United States District Judge Lee P. Rudofsky. You may file written objections to all or part of this Recommendation. Any objections filed must: (1) specifically explain the factual and/or legal basis for the objection; and (2) be received by the Clerk of this Court within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Recommendation. If you do not object, you risk waiving the right to appeal questions of fact and Judge Rudofsky can adopt this Recommendation without independently reviewing the record. II. Discussion: On March 5, 2025, pro se plaintiff Joshua Stockton, an Arkansas Division of Correction (“ADC”) inmate, filed this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). Docs. 1, 2. The same day, I denied Mr. Stockton’s motion for leave to proceed IFP because he is a “three-striker.”1 Doc. 4. As a result, he can proceed with this case without paying the filing fee only if he is

currently in imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Ashley v. Dilworth, 147 F.3d 715, 717 (8th Cir. 1998). Mr. Stockton’s complaint and amended complaint allege that he suffers from

serious foot pain because ADC and medical officials will not provide him gel insoles for his shoes. Such allegations previously have been found insufficient to show imminent danger of serious physical injury. See Stockton v. Payne, et al., No. 4:24- cv-00155-LPR, E.D. Ark), Doc. 12.

After I denied Mr. Stockton’s motion for leave to proceed IFP, he filed a motion requesting that I reconsider my decision, which I denied. Docs. 5, 6. He then appealed that my denial of his motion for leave to proceed IFP to Judge Rudofsky,

who upheld my decision. Docs. 7, 8. To date, although Mr. Stockton has filed an amended complaint again alleging that he is imminent danger of serious physical injury due to serious foot pain (Doc. 11), he has not paid the statutory filing fee, and the deadline to do so has passed.

Doc. 10.

1 The following dismissals should be considered “strikes” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g): Stockton v. Culclager, et al., No. 4:23-cv-00503-BRW (E.D. Ark. Aug. 8, 2023) (dismissal for failure to state a claim); Stockton v. Page, et al., No. 4:23-cv-00582-JM (E.D. Ark. July 12, 2023) (same); and Stockton v. Cannon, No. 4:23-cv-00682-BRW (E.D. Ark. Oct. 24, 2023) (same). III. Conclusion: IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT: l. Mr. Stockton’s claims be DISMISSED, without prejudice, based on his failure to: (1) comply with the Court’s May 12, 2025 Order requiring him to pay the filing fee; and (2) prosecute this lawsuit. 2. The Clerk be instructed to close this case. Dated 18 June 2025.

nf ED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE