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

PATRICK SHERMAN PLAINTIFF

VS. 4:21-cv-00400 BRW

JOHN F. FORRESTER, JR., et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER On May 12, 2021, Plaintiff Patrick Sherman (“Plaintiff”) filed a pro se complaint.1 Asking him to file an Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Affidavit would be futile because Plaintiff is a three-striker under the provisions of

(g). The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) provides that a prisoner cannot proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) 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.2

Before filing this lawsuit on January 28, 2020, Plaintiff filed at least three actions that were dismissed for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.3 Nevertheless, Plaintiff may proceed IFP if he falls under the “imminent danger” exception to the three strikes

1 Doc. No. 1.

2

(g). 3 Records in the office of the Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas reveal that Sherman has had at least three prior civil actions dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim. See Sherman v. Rhodes, 5:96-CV-00365 (E.D. Ark.); Sherman v. Norris, 5:97-CV-00405 (E.D. Ark.); Sherman v. Corr. Med. Serv., 5:01-CV-00161 (E.D. Ark.). rule.4 The exception applies only if the prisoner is in imminent danger at the time he filed his complaint; “[a]llegations that the prisoner has faced imminent danger in the past are insufficient.”5 Plaintiff alleges the dismissals of his earlier cases are wrongfully considered strikes under the PLRA, and claims other wrongs in connection with his previous lawsuits.6 I disagree. And

Plaintiff has not alleged facts that establish imminent danger, and nothing in his pleading otherwise indicates or implies he in in imminent danger of serious physical injury. Accordingly, Plaintiff does not qualify for the imminent danger exception. As such, this case is DISMISSED due to Plaintiff’s failure to pay the filing fee. Plaintiff will have thirty (30) days to reopen this case by paying the $402 filing fee in full. IT IS SO ORDERED this 13th day of May, 2021.

Billy Roy Wilson_________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4 See

(g) (providing that three strikers should be granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis if they are “under imminent danger of serious physical injury”).

5 Ashley v. Dilworth,

(8th Cir. 1998). 6 Doc. No. 1.