Case: 13-13772 Date Filed: 02/26/2014 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-13772
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:13-cv-00119-RLV
BYRON SCOTT WRIGHT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
POLK COUNTY,
BALDWIN COUNTY,
RANDALL HINES,
Ph.D, Interim Regional Hospital Administrator,
MICHAEL L. MURPHY,
Judge, Tallapoosa Judicial Circuit,
DONALD HOWE,
Judge, Tallapoosa Judicial Circuit, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(February 26, 2014)
Case: 13-13772 Date Filed: 02/26/2014 Page: 2 of 4
Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Byron Scott Wright was involuntarily committed to Central State Hospital, a
mental hospital, under the laws of Georgia by the Polk County Superior Court after
the court found him not guilty of aggravated assault and aggravated battery by
reason of insanity. Proceeding pro se, he brought this civil rights action for
damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that defendants denied him his
constitutional rights to a jury trial and to confront his accusers. 1 Wright did not
pay the filing fee, but sought leave to leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
The case was referred to a Magistrate Judge. The judge recommended that
the District Court deny Wright leave to proceed in forma pauperis for the
following reasons.
A prisoner may not bring a civil action in federal court in forma pauperis if
[he] 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 [was] frivolous, malicious, or fail[ed] to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under
imminent danger of serious physical injury. Prison Litigation Reform Act
(PLRA), 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff has filed more than three prior cases
while incarcerated that were dismissed either as frivolous or for failure to
state a claim. See Wright v.PolkCnty., No. 4:12-CV-0256-RLV (N.D. Ga.
Nov. 29, 2012); Wright v. Cedartown Standard, No. 4:11-CV-0293-RLV
(N.D. Ga. Jan. 6, 2012); Wright v. Polk Cnty., No. 4:10-CV-0136-RLV
1
The Magistrate Judge, and the District Court in adopting the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation as indicating in the text, declined to treat Wright’s complaint as a 28 U.S.C. §
2254 petition to set aside the Superior Court’s order of confinement because Wright had not
exhausted his state court remedies as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). See Final Report and
Recommendation at 1, n.1.
2
Case: 13-13772 Date Filed: 02/26/2014 Page: 3 of 4
(N.D. Ga. Nov. 15, 2010); Wright v. Crane, No. 4:10-CV-0135-RLV (N.D.
Ga. Nov. 15, 2010); Wright v. Dodd, 4:10-CV-0134-RLV (N.D. Ga. Nov.
10, 2010); Wright v. Polk Cnty., 4:10-CV-0133-RLV (N.D. Ga. Nov. 8,
2010); Wright v. McClendon, No. 4:10-CV-0132-RLV (N.D. Ga. Nov. 2,
2010). Plaintiff does not allege a current
imminent threat of serious injury in this case. Therefore, pursuant to §
1915(g), plaintiff cannot proceed in forma pauperis in this action.
See Final Report and Recommendation at 2. The District Court adopted the
Magistrate Judge’s recommendation and dismissed Wright’s complaint without
prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee. He now appeals.
We review de novo the District Court’s interpretation of the PLRA “three
strikes provision” regarding the payment of a filing fee. Dupree v. Palmer, 284
F.3d 1234, 1235 (11th Cir. 2002). The PLRA prohibits a prisoner from 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The purpose of this provision is to
curtail abusive prisoner litigation, and after three meritless suits, the prisoner is no
longer permitted to file a suit at the reduced rate provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
Dupree, 284 F.3d at 1236. We have held that the prisoner must pay the full filing
fee “at the time he initiates the suit.” Id. (emphasis in original). If the prisoner
fails to do so, then the proper procedure is to dismiss the complaint without
prejudice. Id.
3
Case: 13-13772 Date Filed: 02/26/2014 Page: 4 of 4
Wright does not contest the District Ccourt’s finding that he has had three
previous actions dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim, and thus that
issue is abandoned. Thus, the only remaining issue is whether he paid the filing
fee at the time he initiated the action. The District Court docketed the complaint
on May 15, 2013, and the first payment for the filing fee, which was only partial,
was received and processed on May 22, 2013. Thus, Wright failed to pay the filing
fee “at the time he initiate[d] the suit.” See Dupree, 284 F.3d at 1236.
AFFIRMED.
4