Opinion
4:24-cv-00113-MTS
01-26-2024
CLINT PHILLIPS, III, Plaintiff, v. ST. LOUIS COUNTY, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MATTHEW T. SCHELP, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter is before the Court on review of Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. Doc. [2]. For the reasons that follow, the Court will deny Plaintiff's Application.
* * *
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) “enacted a variety of reforms designed to filter out the bad [prisoner] claims and facilitate consideration of the good.” Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 204 (2007). One of these reforms is what is commonly known as the “three strikes” provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Orr v. Clements, 688 F.3d 463, 464 (8th Cir. 2012). Section 1915(g) provides:
In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding under this section 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.
Plaintiff Phillips has filed many meritless actions in this Court. See, e.g., Phillips v. United States, 4:23-cv-01209-SPM (E.D. Mo.); Phillips v. Metro Transit Agency, 4:23-cv-01164-SEP (E.D. Mo.); Phillips v. Walls, 4:23-cv-01092-HEA (E.D. Mo). And he was a prisoner, as that term is defined under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h), when he filed at least three actions that the Court later dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or because they failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See, e.g., Phillips v. St. Louis City Police Officers, 4:17-cv-01637-HEA (E.D. Mo.); Phillips v. Romeo, 4:17-cv-01636-NAB (E.D. Mo.); Phillips v. City of St. Louis, 4:11-cv-00791-CEJ (E.D. Mo.). He has struck out.
Unfortunately for him, Plaintiff Phillips once again was a prisoner, as that term is defined under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h), when he filed the instant action; therefore, he cannot proceed with this action unless he prepays the entire $405 filing fee to the Clerk of Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); see also Gonzalez v. United States, 23 F.4th 788, 789 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 142 S.Ct. 2837 (2022) (“After three strikes, a litigant loses the right to sue without prepaying the filing fee.”).
Plaintiff's claims stem from the alleged mishandling of his state criminal proceeding, State v. Clint A. Phillips III, No. 23SL-CR12878 (21st Jud. Cir. 2023). His Complaint does not, in any way, show he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, Doc. [2], is DENIED. Plaintiff is given through Thursday, February 15, 2024 to prepay the entire filing fee of $405 or the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice and without further notice.