The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EASTERN DIVISION
THOMAS JUNIOR GADDIS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 1:24-cv-00828-LCB-SGC
)
STEVEN T. MARSHAL, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Thomas Gaddis has filed numerous pro se lawsuits and habeas
petitions in this district. Gaddis filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and
sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Docs. 1, 2).1 As he acknowledged in his
complaint,2 Gaddis has, on at least three prior occasions, brought a federal civil
action that was dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. Because he cannot proceed in forma pauperis and did not pay the filing and
administrative fees at the time he filed his complaint, the magistrate judge entered a
report recommending the court dismiss this action under the three strikes provision
of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (Doc. 4).
1 Citations to the record refer to the document and page numbers assigned by the court’s CM/ECF
electronic document system and appear in the following format: (Doc. __ at __).
2 See Doc. 1 at 8 (“The record will reflect the Plaintiff is under the 3 strike(s) law.”).
The court received Gaddis’s objection on July 15, 2024, as well as a motion
for an extension of time to pay the filing fee. (Docs. 5, 6). As discussed below, the
court will deny Gaddis’s motion for an extension of time to pay the filing fee and
overrule his objection.
I. Motion for Extension
The magistrate judge recommended this action be dismissed under the Prison
Litigation Reform Act because (1) Gaddis has, on at least three prior occasions,
brought a federal civil action that was dismissed for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted (commonly known as a “strike”),3 and so he cannot
proceed in forma pauperis; (2) he did not pay the filing and administrative fees when
he filed this complaint; and (3) the allegations of the complaint contained no
indication Gaddis is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. (Doc. 4). The
Eleventh Circuit has held that when a prisoner with three strikes files a complaint
without paying the filing fee, the district court should dismiss the complaint without
prejudice. Dupree v. Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234, 1236 (11th Cir. 2002). “The prisoner
3 See Gaddis v. Giddens, No. 21-0591-LSC-SGC, Doc. 2 (N.D. Ala. dismissed June 30, 2021)
(cataloging Gaddis’s many pro se matters, dismissing his § 2241 habeas case, deeming him a
vexatious litigant, and restricting his ability to file future habeas petitions in this district); see also
Gaddis v. Yant, No. 1:16-cv-01973-AKK-JEO (N.D. Ala. filed Dec. 9, 2016) (failure to state a
claim); Gaddis v. Ledbetter, No. 1:16-cv-00348-RDP-JEO (N.D. Ala. filed Feb. 29, 2016) (failure
to state a claim); and Gaddis v. Andrijeski, No. 1:16-cv-00682-VEH-JEO (N.D. Ala. filed Apr. 27,
2016) (failure to state a claim); see also Gaddis v. Woodrouf, No. 21-0460-CLM-SGC (N.D. Ala.
dismissed May 14, 2021) (dismissing complaint under three strikes provision); Gaddis v. Johnson,
No. 1:22-cv-00996-LCB-SGC (N.D. Ala. dismissed Aug. 29, 2022) (same).
cannot simply pay the filing fee after being denied in forma pauperis status. He must
pay the filing fee at the time he initiates the suit.” Id. (emphasis added). The only
exception to this rule arises when “the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious
physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Gaddis now asks the court to permit him additional time to raise the money to
pay the filing fee through gofundme.com. (Doc. 5). As explained above, however,
the law on this issue is clear – Gaddis cannot pay the filing fee after being denied in
forma pauperis status. Because he has three strikes, Gaddis was required to pay the
fee when he filed his complaint. His motion for an extension will therefore be denied.
II. R&R and Gaddis’s Objections
As indicated above, Gaddis acknowledges that he has accrued three strikes;
however, he contends he meets the imminent danger exception to the three strikes
rule. In his objection, he asserts that at various times since 2019, Sylacauga or
Talladega law enforcement officers have injured him and attempted to execute him.
(Doc. 6 at 1-8). These allegations echo other claims he has made in multiple lawsuits
that allege an elaborate conspiracy between Talladega and Sylacauga law
enforcement to target Gaddis for murder because he is a witness to their supposed
corruption and crimes. See, e.g., Gaddis, 1:21-cv-00591-LSC-SGC, ECF No. 4. He
also complains he committed a misdemeanor but was charged and sentenced for a
felony, and he complains about the sentence he was given to serve. (Id. at 7-8). With
respect to the allegations in his lawsuit about his probation revocation proceedings,
Gaddis claims he did not receive copies of some document, and the judge simply
announced Gaddis’s probation would be revoked. (Id. at 8). He argues this violates
due process, and he still does not know why his probation was revoked. (Id.). He
asserts that while he is within the state judicial system, he is “always in or under
imminent danger of serious physical injury.” (Id.).
Gaddis claims he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury because
he is without medication and suffers from high blood pressure and bad eyesight. (Id.
at 7). He fears he will be attacked or murdered, whether he is in or out of prison.
(Id.). Gaddis’s claim about a lack of medication appears only in his objection; this
issue is not mentioned in his complaint. Instead, the complaint focuses on alleged
violations of Gaddis’s Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights during his
probation revocation proceeding. (Doc. 1 at 3-4). His complaint alleges that during
his May 2023 probation revocation hearing, Gaddis never received a written copy of
the alleged probation violations, never saw the probation officer, and was not given
time to prepare a defense. (Id. at 11). He also claims he was threatened and coerced.
(Id.). As relief, he asks this court to order the defendants to serve him with “a written
copy of the conditional regulations, evidence as to why his liberty has been taken
from him.” (Id. at 5).
To determine if § 1915(g)’s exception is met, the “complaint, as a whole,
[must] allege[ ] imminent danger of serious physical injury.” Brown v. Johnson, 387
F.3d 1344, 1350 (11th Cir. 2004). To make this showing, a plaintiff “must allege
and provide specific fact allegations of ongoing serious physical injury, or a pattern
of misconduct evidencing the likelihood of imminent serious physical injury[.]” Ball
v. Allen, No. CIV.A. 06-0496-CG-M, 2007 WL 484547, at *1 (S.D. Ala. Feb. 8,
2007). Additionally, the allegations of imminent danger must be related to the crux
of the claim. See Daker v. Robinson, 802 F. App’x 513, 515 (11th Cir. 2020) (citing
Pettus v. Morgenthau, 554 F.3d 293, 297 (2d Cir. 2009)) (“[T]he statute requires
that the prisoner’s complaint seek to redress an imminent danger of serious physical
injury and that this danger must be fairly traceable to a violation of law alleged in
the complaint.”).
The claims Gaddis raises in his objection about his medication and general
fear for his safety are unconnected to the crux of his complaint, which is focused on
alleged procedural defects in his parole revocation proceedings. Because Gaddis’s
complaint contains no allegations of imminent danger of serious physical injury, he
does not fall within the exception to § 1915(g). Therefore, this action is due to be
dismissed.
After careful consideration of the record in this case and the magistrate judge’s
report, the court OVERRULES Gaddis’s objection (Doc. 6), ADOPTS the report,
and ACCEPTS the recommendation. (Doc. 4). Consistent with that
recommendation, Gaddis’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED
(Doc. 2), and this action is due to be dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(g). Gaddis’s motion for an extension of time is DENIED. (Doc. 5).
A separate order will be entered.
DONE and ORDERED this August 5, 2024.
LILES C. BURKE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE