United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
W. deGRAVELLES JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
matter comes before the Court in connection with the
Court's Order dated March 26, 2019 denying the Plaintiff
authorization to proceed in forma pauperis in this
case and directing him to pay, within twenty-one (21) days,
the full amount of the Court's filing fee.
to the “three strikes” provision of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g), the Court determined that the Plaintiff was
not authorized to proceed in forma pauperis herein,
denied the Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis, and ordered him to pay, within 21 days, the
full amount of the Court's filing fee. The Plaintiff was
placed on notice that a failure to comply with the
Court's Order “shall result in the
dismissal of the Plaintiff's action without further
notice from the Court.”
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a prisoner filing a
civil action or appeal in federal court may be granted in
forma pauperis status but is, nonetheless, required to
pay the full amount of the Court's filing fee over time
in incremental installments. However, such incremental
payments are not allowed and pauper status shall be
denied where the prisoner has filed, on at least three prior
occasions while incarcerated, actions or appeals that have
been dismissed as legally baseless. Specifically,
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.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
instant case, the Plaintiff has, on three or more prior
occasions while incarcerated, brought actions or appeals in
the federal courts that have been dismissed as frivolous or
for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), this Court denied the
Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis
and directed him to pay the full amount of the Court's
filing fee within 21 days. A review of the record by the
Court reflects that the Plaintiff has failed to pay the
filing fee as ordered. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that the above-captioned proceeding be
dismissed without prejudice for failure of the Plaintiff to
pay the Court's filing fee. Judgment shall be entered
IS FURTHER ORDERED that, considering the dismissal
of Plaintiff's appeal, Plaintiff's Motion for Leave
to Appeal In Forma Pauperis be DENIED AS
 R. Doc. 4.
 See R. Doc. 4.
 R. Doc. 4.
 Cases or appeals filed by the
plaintiff which have been dismissed by the federal courts as
frivolous or for failure to state a claim include, but are
not limited to, Derrick Scott v. James M. LeBlanc, et
al., Civil Action No. 12-0239-BAJ-SCR (M.D., La.),
Derrick Scott v. Burl Cain, Civil Action No.
12-0412-JJB-DLD (M.D., La.), and Derrick Scott v. Officer
Haney, et al., Civil Action No. 12-0439-JJB-DLD (M.D.,
La.). The first two referenced cases were dismissed because
the plaintiff's Complaints made clear that he had failed
to exhaust administrative remedies as mandated by 42 U.S.C.
§ 1997e, and the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit has concluded that the dismissal of an action
for failure to state a claim is appropriate when it is clear
from the face of a plaintiff's Complaint that he has not
exhausted administrative remedies. See Carbe v.
Lappin, 492 F.3d 325, 328 (5th Cir. 2007). In
addition, such dismissals may be treated as
“strikes” within the context of 28 U.S.C. §
1915(g). See Emmett v. Ebner, 423 Fed.Appx. 492
(5th Cir. 2011); Martinez v. Bus Driver,
344 Fed.Appx. 46 (5th Cir. 2009); Johnson v.
Kukua, 342 Fed.Appx. 933 (5th Cir. 2009).