United States District Court, D. Kansas
RANDALL A. FULBRIGHT, Plaintiff,
LAUREN AMREIN, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CROW U.S. Senior District Judge
Randall A. Fulbright, is a pre-trial detainee confined in the
Shawnee County Jail in Topeka, Kansas. Plaintiff filed this
pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
against Lauren Amrein, Assistant District Attorney for
Shawnee County, Kansas, alleging defects with his 2014
misdemeanor conviction for sexual battery and seeking relief
from registration under the Kansas Offender Registration Act,
K.S.A. 22-4901, et seq., (KORA), as well as compensatory
complaint was filed on August 8, 2018. Plaintiff has not paid
the $400.00 district court filing fee or filed a motion for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis. However, Plaintiff has long
been subject to the “three-strikes” provision
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Court records fully establish
that Plaintiff “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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Accordingly, as
Plaintiff has been repeatedly advised, he may proceed in
forma pauperis only if he establishes a threat of imminent
danger of serious physical injury. Id.
Fulbright alleges he is in imminent danger from other inmates
and “in relation to diet.” ECF No. 1 at 3.
meet the only exception to the prepayment requirement, a
prisoner who has accrued three strikes must make
‘specific, credible allegations of imminent
danger[.]” Hafed v. Federal Bureau of Prisons,
635 F.3d 1172, 1175 (10th Cir. 2011) (quoting
Kinnel v. Graves, 265 F.3d 1125, 1127-28
(10th Cir. 2001)). He should identify at least
“the general nature of the ‘serious physical
injury' he asserts is imminent.” Id. at
1179 (quoting White v. Colorado, 157, F.3d 1226,
1232 (10th Cir. 1998)). “[V]ague and utterly
conclusory assertions, ” such as those made by Mr.
Fulbright, are not sufficient. Id.
Mr. Fulbright draws no correlation between the alleged
imminent danger and the basis of his lawsuit. To meet the
imminent danger exception, “there must be a nexus
between the imminent danger a three-strikes prisoner alleges
to obtain IFP status and the legal claims asserted in his
complaint.” Pettus v. Morgenthau, 554 F.3d
293, 297 (2nd Cir. 2009); see also Davis v.
CoreCivic, 2017 WL 4269986, *1 (W.D. Okla. Sept. 26,
2017); Lynn v. Roberts, 2011 WL 3667171, *1 (D. Kan.
Aug. 22, 2011). The imminent danger must be fairly traced
back to the asserted wrongs so that judicial relief on his
claims could possibly redress the alleged danger.
Pettus, 554 F.3d at 298-99. Here, Mr. Fulbright has
not demonstrated any nexus between the alleged imminent
danger and the claims he asserts.
pursuant to § 1915(g), Plaintiff may not proceed in
forma pauperis in this civil action. Plaintiff is given time
to pay the full $400.00 district court filing
to the Court. If he fails to pay the full fee within the
prescribed time, the complaint will be dismissed based upon
Plaintiff's failure to satisfy the statutory district
court filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914.
IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT
Plaintiff is granted until December 4, 2018,
to submit the $400.00 filing fee. The failure to submit the
fee by that date will result in the dismissal of this matter
without prejudice and without additional prior notice.
IS SO ORDERED.
 If a person is not granted in forma
pauperis status under § 1915, the fee to file a
non-habeas civil action includes the $350.00 fee required by
28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) and a $50.00 general administrative
fee pursuant to § 1914(b) and the District Court
Miscellaneous Fee Schedule prescribed by the Judicial
Conference of the United States.
See Fulbright v. Kansas Bureau of
Investigations, No. 15-3127 (D. Kan. filed May 28,
2015), ECF Doc. 7 (dismissing plaintiff's complaint and
finding the dismissal constituted plaintiff's third