Jessie Terrell Radford v. Caren Harp; Hunter Scott; Ryan Rainwater; and B....

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS EL DORADO DIVISION JESSIE TERRELL RADFORD PLAINTIFF v. Case No. 1:26-cv-1014 CAREN HARP; HUNTER SCOTT; RYAN RAINWATER; and B. SHAIFERS DEFENDANTS ORDER Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) issued by the Honorable Christy D. Comstock, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. ECF No. 10.

Judge Comstock recommends that Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2) be denied pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and that this action be dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff’s right to re-open it with payment of the appropriate filing fee. Judge Comstock explains that Plaintiff has at least three previous actions that qualify as strikes against him under § 1915(g), which precludes his ability to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Judge Comstock also states that Plaintiff has not alleged that the exception to this rule applies—that he is in imminent danger of physical injury. Judge Comstock also provides specific directions to be given to the Clerk concerning any new action filed by Plaintiff.

Plaintiff filed a timely objection. ECF No. 12. Plaintiff does not dispute that he has three prior strikes pursuant to § 1915(g). Instead, he asserts that the exception should apply because he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. Plaintiff’s objection is difficult to follow, but he seems to rely either on multitudinous allegations of injuries underlying previous actions he commenced or on new allegations of unsafe conditions in his confinement to satisfy the imminent danger exception. There are no such allegations in the Complaint, which asserts claims centered on misconduct in Plaintiff’s arrest and conviction. ECF No. 1.

Section 1915(g) reads: In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding [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. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Whether the imminent danger exception applies is dependent upon whether the complaint sufficiently alleges that there is imminent danger present at the time of filing. See McAlphin v. Toney, 281 F.3d 709, 710-711 (8th Cir. 2002). Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint has no allegations indicating that he faces imminent physical danger.1 Without such allegations, the 0F imminent danger exception to § 1915(g) does not apply. See id. Therefore, the Court agrees with Judge Comstock’s recommendation.

Upon review, the Court adopts Judge Comstock’s R&R (ECF No. 10) in toto. Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 2) is DENIED and Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Further, the Clerk of this Court is directed to provisionally file any new action in which Jessie Terrell Radford seeks to proceed IFP. The Magistrate Judge shall then review the action. If it is a civil action—rather than a criminal or habeas one—and Radford has not asserted a valid claim that he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury, the Magistrate Judge shall recommend that IFP status be denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 19th day of May, 2026.

/s/ Susan O. Hickey Susan O. Hickey United States District Judge The Court does not consider the dangers Plaintiff alleges in his objection as a supplement to the Complaint. The assorted dangers he mentions in his objection have no connection to the factual allegations underlying his Complaint.