UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT CHATTANOOGA

JAMES SWANN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Case No. 1:24-cv-186 v. ) ) Judge Travis R. McDonough SULLIVAN COUNTY DISTRICT ) ATTORNEY, ) Magistrate Judge Susan K. Lee ) Defendant. ) ) )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff, an inmate in the Sullivan County Detention Center, has filed a complaint for violation of

(Doc. 1), a prisoner trust fund statement (Doc. 2), and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 6), and a supplement to the complaint (Doc. 7). For the reasons that follow, the Court finds that Plaintiff may not proceed as a pauper in this action, Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) will be DENIED, and this action will be dismissed. I.

(g) “THREE STRIKES” Plaintiff is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis in this action because of the “three strikes” provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”),

(g). This provision provides that an inmate may not proceed in forma pauperis in a civil action if, as a prisoner, he has filed three or more cases that a court dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless “(he) is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.”

(g). As a prisoner, Plaintiff has filed at least three cases that a Court dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Swann v. Washington Cnty. Jail, No. 1:22-CV- 179,

, at *1–2 (E.D. Tenn. Sept. 6, 2022) (listing cases) (citations omitted). Accordingly, Plaintiff has accumulated at least three strikes under the PLRA and cannot

file the instant suit, or any future suit, as a pauper unless he demonstrates that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury.

(g). II. IMMINENT DANGER EXCEPTION The three strikes provision of the PLRA has an exception which allows a prisoner with three or more “strikes” to proceed in forma pauperis if his complaint contains “a plausible allegation that the prisoner faced ‘imminent danger of serious physical injury’ at the time of filing.” Andrews v. Cervantes,

(9th Cir. 2007). This imminent danger exception “is essentially a pleading requirement subject to the ordinary principles of notice pleading.” Vandiver v. Prison Health Servs., Inc.,

(6th Cir. 2013) (quoting

Vandiver v. Vasbinder,

(6th Cir. 2011)). The exception applies where a court, informed by its “‘judicial experience and common sense,’ could ‘draw the reasonable inference’” that a plaintiff faced an existing danger when he filed the pleading. Taylor v. First Med. Mgmt.,

(6th Cir. 2012)). In his § 1983 complaint and supplement, Plaintiff alleges issues arising in criminal proceedings against him (Doc. 1, at 3–4; Doc. 7, at 1). These allegations do not allow this Court to draw a reasonable inference that Plaintiff was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed his complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff may not proceed as a pauper in these proceedings. III. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 6) will be DENIED pursuant to § 1915(g), and the instant action will be DISMISSED without prejudice to Plaintiff paying the filing fee in full. See In re Alea,

(6th Cir. 2002) (noting that prisoner’s obligation to pay filing fee arises when complaint delivered to

district court clerk). Accordingly, this case will be CLOSED. Also, the Court CERTIFIES that any appeal from this decision would not be taken in good faith and would be totally frivolous, such that any request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on any subsequent appeal will be DENIED. AN APPROPRIATE JUDGMENT ORDER WILL ENTER. /s/ Travis R. McDonough TRAVIS R. MCDONOUGH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE