Martin

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

SILAS MARTIN, AIS # 145609, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 2:26-CV-104-WKW

) [WO]

JOHN HAMM, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Silas Martin, an inmate in the custody of the Alabama Department of

Corrections (ADOC), filed this pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against five

Defendants: John Hamm; John Crow; C. Apiri; Ms. Barnes; and Nurse Peterson.

(Doc. # 1.) However, Plaintiff has filed at least three federal lawsuits that have been

dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim, and, after a hearing

on the issue, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he is in imminent danger of serious

physical injury to allow him to proceed in forma pauperis in this action. See 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g). Hence, he was required to pay the $405.00 filing fee at the time

he initiated this action.1 Because he did not submit the $405.00 filing fee, this action

will be dismissed without prejudice under § 1915(g).

1 If a person is not granted in forma pauperis status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the filing fee for a

non-habeas civil action includes a $350.00 statutory fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) and a $55.00

II. DISCUSSION

A. The PLRA’s “Three Strikes” Provision

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) imposes specific restrictions on

civil rights lawsuits filed by inmates in federal court. One key restriction is known

as the “three strikes” provision, which states:

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.

§ 1915(g). Section 1915(g)’s purpose is “to curtail abusive prisoner litigation.”

Dupree v. Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234, 1236 (11th Cir. 2002) (per curiam); see also Wells

v. Brown, 58 F.4th 1347, 1355 (11th Cir. 2023) (“By taking away the privilege of

proceeding in forma pauperis from prisoners who have struck out, the rule is

‘designed to filter out the bad claims and facilitate consideration of the good.’”

(quoting Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 204 (2007)). Under this provision, if a

prisoner has three or more qualifying dismissals (“strikes”) and fails to pay the

required $405.00 fee at the time the new complaint is filed, the court must dismiss

the case without prejudice. See Dupree, 284 F.3d at 1236. As the Eleventh Circuit

general administrative fee, as set forth in § 1914(b) and the District Court Miscellaneous Fee

Schedule established by the Judicial Conference of the United States.

explained in Dupree, the three-striker cannot cure such failure by paying the filing

fee after the complaint has been filed:

We conclude that the proper procedure is for the district court to dismiss

the complaint without prejudice when it denies the prisoner leave to

proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to the three strikes provision of

§ 1915(g). The prisoner 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.; accord Daker v. Ward, 999 F.3d 1300, 1310 (11th Cir. 2021).

Plaintiff has filed numerous civil actions in the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Alabama while incarcerated and has accumulated at least

three strikes under § 1915(g).2 See, e.g., Martin v. Hulett, No. 2:03-cv-1174-MHT-

TFM (M.D. Ala. filed Dec. 1, 2003) (appeal dismissed as frivolous); Martin v.

Pickett, No. 3:08-cv-511-TMH-SRW (M.D. Ala. filed June 30, 2008) (claims

dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)); and Martin v. Auburn Police Dep’t,

No. 3:15-cv-307-MHT-SRW (M.D. Ala. filed May 7, 2015) (claims dismissed under

2 Courts regularly take judicial notice of a prisoner’s litigation history in federal courts when

determining whether the prisoner has accrued three strikes under § 1915(g). See, e.g., Lloyd v.

Benton, 686 F.3d 1225, 1226 (11th Cir. 2012) (noting the district court took “judicial notice of [the

prisoner’s] status as a ‘three strikes’ litigant under the PLRA”); Lee v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 2025

WL 1113423, at *1 & n.1 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 15, 2025) (taking judicial notice of the prisoner’s prior

federal lawsuits to dismiss the action under the “three-strikes” rule); Burton v. Walker, 2025 WL

241115, at *2 (M.D. Ala. Jan. 17, 2025) (taking judicial notice of its own records to evaluate the

prisoner’s three-strikes status under § 1915(g)); see also United States v. Glover, 179 F.3d 1300,

1303 n.5 (11th Cir. 1999) (“A court may take judicial notice of its own records and the records of

inferior courts.” (citation and internal quotations marks omitted). Moreover, the final dispositions

of a prisoner’s prior federal lawsuits “can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose

accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2). The provided list of

Plaintiff’s “strikes” may not be exhaustive.

28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii)). These dismissals place Plaintiff in violation

of § 1915(g).3 Consequently, multiple subsequent civil actions filed by Plaintiff

have been dismissed as barred by § 1915(g)’s three-strikes provision. See, e.g.,

Martin v. Newman, No. 2:15-cv-839-MHT-SRW (M.D. Ala. filed Nov. 6, 2015)

(dismissed March 7, 2016, pursuant to § 1915(g)); Martin v. Treese, No. 3:16-cv-

377-WHA-SRW (M.D. Ala. filed May 25, 2016) (dismissed June 29, 2016, pursuant

to § 1915(g)); and Martin v. Robertson, No. 3:20-cv-630-MHT-CSC (M.D. Ala.

filed Aug. 28, 2020) (dismissed October 19, 2020, pursuant to § 1915(g)).

B. Exception to the “Three Strikes” Provision

Because Plaintiff has accrued three strikes under § 1915(g), he cannot proceed

in forma pauperis in this case. He was required to pay the $405.00 filing fee at the

time he initiated this action and did not do so. However, there is an exception to the

three-strikes rule: A three-striker can proceed in forma pauperis if he was “under

imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time he filed his complaint. 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g) (emphasis added); see also Daker v. Ward, 999 F.3d 1300, 1310–

3 Plaintiff checked the box to acknowledge that he has “begun other lawsuits in state or federal

court relating to [his] imprisonment,” but he mentions only one lawsuit that is currently pending

in the Middle District of Alabama: Martin v. Yes Care LLC, No. 2:25-cv-672-ECM-JTA (M.D.

Ala. filed Aug. 27, 2025). (See Doc. # 1 at 1–2.) Contrary to his representation, Plaintiff has filed

33 suits in the Middle District of Alabama over the years (including this suit and the separate,

pending suit acknowledged in his complaint). Additionally, Plaintiff has been advised previously

by federal courts in at least three separate cases that he is subject to the three-strikes bar under

§ 1915(g). Plaintiff is cautioned that his status as a pro se litigant does not excuse him from the

obligation to provide truthful and complete information regarding his litigation history and that a

failure to do so in future actions, following notice and an opportunity to respond, may serve as an

independent basis for dismissal of those actions as a sanction. See Mitchell v. Nobles, 873 F.3d

869, 875 (11th Cir. 2017).

11 (11th Cir. 2021) (“To satisfy this exception, the prisoner must show he is in

imminent danger ‘at the time that he seeks to file his suit in district court . . . .’”

(quoting Medberry v. Butler, 185 F.3d 1189, 1192–93 (11th Cir. 1999))).

Allegations of past harm do not satisfy the requirements of the statutory exception.

Daker, 999 F.3d at 1311; see also Medberry, 185 F.3d at 1193 (“[A] prisoner’s

allegation that he faced imminent danger sometime in the past is . . . insufficient.”).

Additionally, generalized assertions, lacking “specific fact allegations” to

demonstrate that serious physical injury is imminent, are insufficient to trigger the

exception under § 1915(g). Medberry, 185 F.3d at 1193; see also Daker, 999 F.3d

at 1311 (holding that “[g]eneral assertions . . . are ‘insufficient to invoke the

exception to § 1915(g) absent specific fact allegations of ongoing serious physical

injury, or of a pattern of misconduct evidencing the likelihood of imminent serious

physical injury’” (quoting Brown v. Johnson, 387 F.3d 1344, 1350 (11th Cir.

2004))). In assessing whether a prisoner has shown “imminent danger of serious

physical injury” under § 1915(g), the court considers the complaint, in its entirety,

“construing it liberally and accepting its allegations as true.” Daker, 999 F.3d

at 1311 (quoting Brown, 387 F.3d at 1350).

In his complaint, which was filed on February 13, 2026,4 Plaintiff alleges that

he was attacked by several inmates on December 14, 2025, resulting in a broken

4 “Under the ‘prison mailbox rule,’ a pro se prisoner’s court filing is deemed filed on the date it is

delivered to prison authorities for mailing.” Williams v. McNeil, 557 F.3d 1287, 1290 n.2 (11th

jawbone, a “serious bruise” on the left side of his head, and “cuts that looked like

stab[] wounds.” (Doc. # 1-1 at 1–2.) Plaintiff claims that he has requested an

appointment with a neurologist “to see if [he] suffered some kind of brain damage[],

or bleeding on the brain” but his requests have been denied. (Id. at 4.) He also

claims that, without an Order directing “Nurse Barnes and[] Nurse Peterson

(YesCare LLC) to schedule him an outside appointment with a ‘neurologist,’” he

“might be irreparably harmed if he’s bleeding on the brain.” (Id. at 6.)

Based on the allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint, a videoconference hearing

was scheduled for March 10, 2026, to determine whether Plaintiff was “under

imminent danger of serious physical injury” such that he would be permitted to

proceed in forma pauperis in this case. (Doc. # 2.) Prior to the hearing, CHS AL,

LLC d/b/a YesCare Corp. (“YesCare”), a nonparty, filed a brief regarding Plaintiff’s

medical condition, along with 83 pages of sick-call requests and medical records.

(Docs. # 10, 10-1.) Following the March 10 hearing, YesCare was directed to

supplement the record with the status of the consultation request for a CT scan of

Plaintiff’s brain, which the Utilization Management Medical Director was reviewing

at the time of the hearing. (Doc. # 13.) On March 18, 2026, YesCare supplemented

Cir. 2009). Absent evidence to the contrary, the court must “assume that a prisoner delivered a

filing to prison authorities on the date that he signed it.” Jeffries v. United States, 748 F.3d 1310,

1314 (11th Cir. 2014). It appears that Plaintiff signed and dated his complaint “February 13,

2025.” (Doc. # 1 at 4.) Because the complaint’s allegations center around incidents that occurred

in December 2025 and January 2026, and because the mailed complaint is postmarked February

13, 2026, it is assumed that Plaintiff meant to date his complaint February 13, 2026.

the record, providing confirmation that the Utilization Management Medical

Director approved Plaintiff for a CT scan of his head without contrast and that

Plaintiff is scheduled for the scan. (Doc. # 15.) After consideration of the matters

addressed at the March 10 hearing and YesCare’s brief, medical records, and

supplement to the record, Magistrate Judge Pate, who conducted the hearing, found

that Plaintiff is not under imminent danger of physical injury. (Doc. # 17.)

Plaintiff has filed three applications to proceed in forma pauperis. (Docs.

# 4, 11, 16.) However, he does not meet the imminent-danger exception to the three-

strikes provision under § 1915(g), and this case will be dismissed without prejudice.

III. CONCLUSION

Plaintiff has filed at least three federal lawsuits while incarcerated that were

dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B), and he has not shown that he was under imminent danger of serious

physical injury when he filed his complaint in this action. Therefore, Plaintiff was

required to pay the $405.00 filing fee at the time of filing his complaint but failed to

do so. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without

prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s pending motion for status (Doc. # 3),

his pending applications to proceed in forma pauperis (Docs. # 4, 11, & 14), and his

motion to remove parties (Doc. # 18) are DENIED as moot.

Final Judgment will be entered separately.

DONE this 1st day of April, 2026.

/s/ W. Keith Watkins

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE