ALLEN v. JACKSON STATE PRISON
5:25-cv-00209
M.D. Ga.May 29, 2025Background
- Denver Fenton Allen, an incarcerated plaintiff, filed a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint comprised of sixty-one pages against Jackson State Prison and various named defendants.
- Allen has filed approximately forty-eight federal civil complaints, at least three of which were previously dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or failing to state a claim, resulting in three "strikes" under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA).
- Allen did not pay the filing fee and did not move to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) for this action.
- The complaint included numerous frivolous or nonsensical parties (such as continents and countries) and contained significant illegible portions.
- Many of Allen's alleged injuries are recurring claims about longstanding medical conditions, none of which have been found to present imminent danger of serious physical injury upon review by multiple courts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Allen entitled to proceed IFP under PLRA § 1915(g) despite three strikes? | Health issues create imminent danger | No imminent danger present | No—Allen barred by three strikes rule |
| Whether the claims and named parties are non-frivolous | Broad allegations of constitutional violations | Complaints are frivolous/nonsensical | Court found claims and parties frivolous |
| Whether past or longstanding injuries can constitute "imminent danger" exception under PLRA | Continual health issues pose ongoing risk | Allegations about conditions are not new or emergent | Past injuries insufficient for imminent danger |
| Whether a complaint with illegible content can proceed | Filed claims regardless of legibility | Complaint is indecipherable | Indecipherable complaint warrants dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Medberry v. Butler, 185 F.3d 1189 (11th Cir. 1999) (delineates what constitutes a "strike" under the PLRA)
- Daker v. Comm’r, Ga. Dep’t of Corr., 820 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir. 2016) (confirms three grounds that warrant a strike under PLRA)
- Dupree v. Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234 (11th Cir. 2002) (explains dismissal is required when plaintiff with three strikes does not pay filing fee at initiation)