IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA COLUMBUS_ DIVISION

_WARREN PASCHAL, JR., : : Plaintiff, : : v. : No. 4:24-CV-00177-CDL-AGH : : _Nurse ESTER JONES, et al., : : Defendants. : ________________________________ :

DISMISSAL ORDER Pro se Plaintiff Warren Paschal, Jr., an inmate in the Muscogee County Jail in Columbus, Georgia, has filed the above-captioned action seeking relief pursuant to

. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff also seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 3. For the reasons discussed below, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 3) is DENIED and this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. Federal law bars a prisoner from bringing a civil action in federal court in forma pauperis if [he] 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). This is known as the “three strikes provision.” Under § 1915(g), a prisoner incurs a “strike” any time he has a federal lawsuit or appeal dismissed on the grounds that it is (1) frivolous, (2) malicious, or (3) fails to state a claim. See Medberry v. Butler,

(11th Cir. 1999); see also Daker v. Comm’r, Ga. Dep’t of

Corr.,

(11th Cir. 2016) (confirming that “these three grounds are the only grounds that can render a dismissal a strike”). A case dismissed as an “abuse of the judicial process” counts as a strike under

(g). Rivera v. Allin,

(11th Cir. 1998), abrogated on other grounds by Jones v. Bock,

(2007) (holding that dismissal of case for abuse of judicial process when plaintiff “lied under penalty of perjury about the existence of a prior lawsuit,” counts as a strike even if

the court “may not have uttered the words ‘frivolous’ or ‘malicious’”). In fact, a “dismissal for abuse of the judicial process is precisely the type of strike that Congress envisioned when drafting Section 1915(g).”

(citations omitted). Once a prisoner incurs three strikes, his ability to proceed in forma pauperis in federal court is greatly limited. Leave to proceed in forma pauperis may not be granted unless the prisoner is under imminent

danger of serious physical injury. Medberry,

. A review of court records on the Federal Judiciary’s Public Access to Court Electronic Records (“PACER”) database reveals that Plaintiff has filed numerous federal lawsuits (not including habeas petitions) and that at least three of his complaints or appeals that were filed as a prisoner complaint have been dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A or as frivolous. See Paschal v. Petty, No. 22-13299,

, at *1 (11th Cir. May 19, 2023) (appeal dismissed as frivolous); Paschal v. Walkman, No. 22- 12112-A,

, at *1 (11th Cir. Dec. 12, 2022) (appeal dismissed as frivolous); Paschal v. Petty, 4:22-cv-00019 (M.D. Ga. Sep. 19, 2022) (dismissed for abuse of judicial process due to failure to truthfully disclose litigation history);1 Paschal v. Walkman, Case No. 4:21-cv-00213-CDL-MSH (M.D. Ga. June 7, 2022) (dismissed

for failure to state a claim). Plaintiff is thus barred from prosecuting this action in forma pauperis unless he is in “imminent danger of serious physical injury.”

(g). “[T]the issue is whether [Plaintiff’s] complaint, as a whole, alleges imminent danger of serious physical injury.” Brown v. Johnson,

(11th Cir. 2004). To qualify for this exception, a prisoner must allege specific facts, as opposed to “‘general

assertion[s],’” that describe an “‘ongoing serious physical injury or [] a pattern of misconduct evidencing the likelihood of imminent serious physical injury.’”

(citation omitted). Complaints of past injuries are not sufficient. See Medberry,

(holding that the exception was not triggered where threat of assault by other prisoners ceased to exist when the plaintiff was placed in administrative confinement prior to filing

his complaint); Brown,

(citations omitted). “[G]eneralized references to being in danger or being subject to abuse, . . . [which] are conclusory, vague, and unsupported by any well-pleaded factual allegations . . . [do not] support a claim of imminent danger.” Rodriguez v. Am. Civil Liberty Union, No. 3:23-cv-16482-LC-HTC, at *3 (N.D. Fla. July 5, 2023).

1 The Eleventh Circuit has held that a dismissal for abuse of the judicial process “is precisely the type of strike that Congress envisioned when drafting section 1915(g).” Rivera v. Allin,

(11th Cir. 1998), abrogated on other grounds by Jones v. Bock,

(2007). Plaintiff requests “40 million dollars” and complains that “Nurse Ester Jones was negligent performing her duty as a nurse” because Plaintiff “was constipated for 5 days.”

ECF No. 1 at 1. Even liberally construing his complaint and accepting all allegations as true, Plaintiff has not alleged an “imminent danger of serious physical injury.”

(g). Plaintiff, therefore, may not proceed in forma pauperis and his action must be dismissed without prejudice to his right to refile with pre-payment of the full $405.00 filing fee. See Dupree v. Palmer,

(11th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (holding that “the proper procedure is for the district court to dismiss the complaint without

prejudice when it denies the prisoner leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to the three strikes provision of § 1915(g)”). Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 3) is DENIED and this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. SO ORDERED, this 10th day of January, 2025.

S/Clay D. Land CLAY D. LAND U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA