United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division
D. WHITNEY CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
MATTER is before the Court upon Eddricco
Li'shaun Brown-Bey's motion to proceed in forma
pauperis (Doc. No. 2), which he filed in association with a
civil complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. No.
is a prisoner of the state of North Carolina. He claims that
on March 25, 2015, he, a “Moorish American National,
was ‘kidnapped' (unlawfully imprisoned) by the
public servents [sic] of (THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA) and is
being held hostage for profit under the ‘Ex post
Facto' status of (‘Black' inmate opus number .
. .)[.] These convictions are unlawful and now constitute
hostage taking, peonage[, ] Human Trafficking, Genocide,
denationalization, ‘slavery and kidnapping.' The
State Court enforced ‘Ex post Facto' laws upon this
Plaintiff, who is not and cannot be a U.S. Citizen[.]
(Compl. 3.) Plaintiff seeks immediate release and $50, 000,
000.00 in compensatory damages. (Compl. 3.) He also seeks to
proceed in this action without pre-payment of fees and costs.
(Doc. No. 2.)
state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the
violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of
the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation
was committed by a person acting under color of state
law.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
Before turning to Plaintiff's request for compensatory
damages based upon his allegations of “hostage taking,
peonage[, ] Human Trafficking, Genocide, denationalization,
‘slavery and kidnapping, '” the Court must
address Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis
(Doc. No. 2).
law requires that a party instituting a civil action in
federal district court pay a filing fee or be granted leave
to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs. See
28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(a)(1). The Prison
Litigation Reform Act states, in relevant part, that:
In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a
judgment in a civil action or proceeding [in forma pauperis]
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) (often referred to as the
“three strikes rule”). Plaintiff has previously
filed at least three such actions. See Brown-Bey v.
Hooks, et al., No. 1:18-cv-15-FDW, 2018 WL 576309, at *2
(W.D. N.C. Jan. 26, 2018) (frivolous); Brown-Bey v.
Mecklenburg Cty. Health Dep't, No.
3:17-cv-00279-FDW, 2017 WL 4484243, at *1 (W.D. N.C. June 16,
2017) (frivolous); Brown-Bey v. North Carolina House of
Representatives, et al, No. 1:16-cv-00375-FDW (W.D. N.C.
Jan. 27, 2017) (frivolous); see also Brown-Bey v. State
of North Carolina, et al, No. 1:17-cv-00722 (D. D.C.
April 14, 2017) (frivolous) (Pl.'s Ex., Doc. No. 11). All
raised claims identical or similar to those raised in the
he labels his Complaint an “Imminent Danger
Complaint” (Compl.1), Plaintiff does not allege he is
in imminent danger of serious physical injury, see
§ 1915(g), or cite any facts from which the Court could
infer such an allegation. Accordingly, his § 1983
Complaint is not exempt from the PLRA's three strikes
rule, and Plaintiff may not proceed in forma pauperis in this
action. See id.
reasons stated herein, Plaintiff is barred by the three
strikes rule from proceeding in forma pauperis in this
action. See § 1915(g). Because Plaintiff has
not prepaid the filing fee in ...