# Oliver v. Ward (INMATE 4)

> District Court, M.D. Alabama · June 28, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10630918

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Alabama
- **Decided:** June 28, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10630918

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that, in applying 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), “the issue is whether his complaint, as a whole, alleges imminent danger of serious physical injury.” (Emphasis added.)

## Opinion text

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

MICHAEL DARNELL OLIVER, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) CIVIL ACTION NO.
v. ) 2:24cv298-MHT
) (WO)
CAM WARD, et al., )
)
Defendants. )

OPINION
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff, an inmate,
filed this lawsuit contending that he has been
improperly denied parole and a low security level that
would allow him to participate in work release. This
lawsuit is now before the court on the recommendation
of the United States Magistrate Judge that, pursuant to
the ‘three strikes’ provision set forth in 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g), plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis be denied and the case be dismissed
without prejudice for failure to pay the filing and
administrative fees upon initiation of the case. Also
before the court are plaintiff’s objections to the
recommendation, in which he asserts that his complaint
should not be dismissed under section 1915(g) because
he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.

After an independent and de novo review of the
record, the court concludes that plaintiff’s objections
should be overruled and the magistrate judge’s
recommendation adopted. Although plaintiff asserts in

his objections that he is in imminent danger, these
assertions are unrelated to the allegations in his
complaint, and accordingly are not relevant to the
court’s assessment of whether section 1915(g) applies

to his case. See Brown v. Johnson, 387 F.3d 1344, 1350
(11th Cir. 2004) (explaining that, in applying 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g), “the issue is whether his complaint,
as a whole, alleges imminent danger of serious physical

injury.” (Emphasis added.)).
An appropriate judgment will be entered.
DONE, this the 28th day of June, 2024.

/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10630918. Public record. Not legal advice.