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

GARY LEON WEBSTER ADC #114018 PLAINTIFF

v. Case No. 4:22-cv-00073-KGB

ZHENG-LI SHI, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER Plaintiff Gary Webster filed a pro se complaint on January 26, 2022 (Dkt. No. 2). Before the Court is Mr. Webster’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 1). The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) provides that a prisoner cannot proceed in forma pauperis “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.”

(g). Prior to filing this lawsuit on January 26, 2022, Mr. Webster filed at least three actions that were dismissed for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Webster v. Does, 3:19-CV-00059 DPM (E.D. Ark.); Webster v. Pigg, 3:19-CV-00060 DPM (E.D. Ark.); and Webster v. Day Inn Motels, Inc., et al., 3:19-CV-00078 DPM (E.D. Ark.). Nevertheless, Mr. Webster may proceed in forma pauperis if he falls under the “imminent danger” exception to the three strikes rule. 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”); Ashley v. Dilworth,

(8th Cir. 1998) (explaining that the exception applies only if the prisoner is in imminent danger “at the time of filing” and that “[a]llegations that the prisoner has faced imminent danger in the past are insufficient”). It appears Mr. Webster is suing Zheng-Li Shi, a virologist in Wuhan, China, for his involvement with Covid-19 (Dkt. No. 2 at 8) and the remaining defendants for creating vaccines that potentially can cause blood clots in people, like Mr. Webster, who have a particular blood type (Id. at 9). These allegations do not indicate that Mr. Webster is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. Thus, it would be futile to direct Mr. Webster to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Accordingly, this case will be dismissed due to Mr. Webster’s failure to pay the filing fee. Mr. Webster will have thirty (30) days to reopen this case by paying the $402 filing fee in full. It is therefore ordered that: 1. Mr. Webster’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied (Dkt. No. 1). 2. Mr. Webster’s motion for order is granted (Dkt. No. 4). 3. Mr. Webster’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice. 4. Mr. Webster has thirty (30) days from the date of this order in which to reopen this case by paying the $402 filing fee in full. 5. The Court certifies, pursuant to

(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order or the accompanying Judgment would not be taken in good faith. It is so ordered this 16th day of March, 2022. Bu shh □ 4 . Prlus_ Kristine G. Baker United States District Judge