UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

PHILIP LIGHTFOOT,

Plaintiff, Case No. 2:25-cv-12681 Honorable Susan K. DeClercq v. United States District Court

WASHINGTON, et al.,

Defendants. /

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (ECF NO. 2), DISMISSING THE AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF No. 5), DISMISSING THE CASE, AND DENYING PERMISSION TO PROCEED IN FORMAL PAUPERIS ON APPEAL

On August 26, 2025, Philip Lightfoot, who is currently incarcerated at the Cooper Street Correctional Facility in Jackson, Michigan, filed a complaint pro se against four Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) employees. ECF No. 1. He also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. On September 30, 2025, he filed an amended complaint, which is the operative complaint. ECF No. 5. In his amended complaint, Lightfoot claims that Defendants violated the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments by imposing a visitor restriction and by failing to follow established policy when withdrawing money from his institutional account. He seeks $9,000 in punitive damages, $9,000 in compensatory damages, and restoration of funds withdrawn from his institutional account.

The Court may authorize commencement of an action without prepayment of the filing fee and costs if a plaintiff demonstrates an inability to pay such fees.

(a)(1). However, this process is subject to the Prison Litigation

Reform Act’s (PLRA) three-strikes rule.

(g). Under the three- strikes rule, a prisoner may not proceed in forma pauperis when, on three or more previous occasions, a federal court dismissed the incarcerated plaintiff’s action because it was frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim for which relief may be

granted.

(g). Accordingly, “[c]ourts may sua sponte apply the three- strikes rule ... and take judicial notice of a plaintiff’s prior dismissals.” White v. Sturm, 737 F. Supp.3d 576, 578 (E.D. Mich. 2024) (citations omitted). In a limited

exception, a prisoner plaintiff’s claim can overcome the three-strike rule if the prisoner plaintiff shows they are “under imminent danger of serious physical injury.”

(g). The PLRA’s three-strikes rule applies to Lightfoot because he has had at least

three civil rights complaints dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim. See, e.g., Lightfoot v. Scutt, et al., No. 2:12-CV-11097 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 17, 2013); Lightfoot v. MDOC Parole Bd., et al., No. 2:11-CV-11183,

(E.D. Mich. Apr. 19, 2011); Lightfoot v. Scutt, et al., No. 2:11-CV-14968 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 20, 2011). Lightfoot, therefore, may not proceed without prepaying fees and costs unless he satisfies the imminent danger exception to the three-strikes

rule. Here, he fails to do so because his complaint does not allege imminent danger of serious physical injury whatsoever, even liberally construed for pro se

complainants. See Estelle v. Gamble,

(1976) (holding that the pleadings are liberally construed but must still contain a supportive, factual basis for the claims). Instead, his claims that Defendants unfairly placed him on restricted visitor status and improperly withdrew funds from his prison account do not raise a

possibility of physical injury. See

(g). Because there is no basis to conclude that Lightfoot qualifies for the imminent danger exception, the Court will deny his motion to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs and dismiss the

case. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the application to proceed without prepayment of fees or cost, ECF No. 2, DISMISSES the amended complaint, ECF No. 5, and DISMISSES the case pursuant to

(g). This dismissal is

without prejudice to the filing of a new complaint with full payment of the filing fee ($350.00) and the administrative fee ($55.00). Further, it is ORDERED that Lightfoot is denied permission to proceed in

forma pauperis on appeal because, under the three-strikes provision of

(g) such that an appeal from this order would be frivolous and cannot be taken in good faith. See

(a)(3).

IT IS SO ORDERED. This is a final order and closes the above-captioned case. /s/Susan K. DeClercq SUSAN K. DeCLERCQ United States District Judge Dated: October 27, 2025