Strader (ID 2000036315) v. City Confidential et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
JAMES C. STRADER,
Plaintiff,
v. 	CASE NO. 25-3260-JWL
CITY CONFIDENTIAL, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff James C. Strader, who is incarcerated at the Hutchinson Correctional Facility
(HCF) in Hutchinson, Kansas, brings this pro se civil action. When he filed the complaint, Plaintiff
neither paid the filing fee for this case nor filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
He did, however, file a document labeled as a poverty affidavit that asks the Court to permit him
to pay the filing fee in installments of $100 every two weeks. (Doc. 2.) The Court liberally
construes this pro se document as a motion, which it must deny. This Court does not set up payment
plans of the type Plaintiff requests.
Prisoner plaintiffs who are granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis—meaning without
prepayment of the entire filing fee—are required to make payments in installments calculated
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). See Heide v. Kan. Dept. of Corr’s, 2025 WL 2374154, *1 (D. Kan.
Aug. 14, 2025) (unpublished) (explaining that the Court is unable to schedule bi-monthly payments
of outstanding filing fees owed by a prisoner plaintiff). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), however,
prisoners are generally prohibited from bringing a civil action without prepaying the filing fee in
full “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
Case 5:25-cv-03260-JWL Document 3 Filed 12/05/25 Page 1 of 3

2
it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” This is known
as the “three-strikes” provision.
Plaintiff is 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 . . . , 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.”1 Accordingly, he may
proceed in forma pauperis only if he establishes a threat of imminent danger of serious physical
injury. Id.
“To meet the only exception to the prepayment requirement, a prisoner who has accrued
three strikes must make ‘specific, credible allegations of imminent danger of serious physical
harm.’” Davis v. GEO Group Corr., 696 F. App’x 851, 854 (10th Cir. May 23, 2017)
(unpublished) (quoting Hafed v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 635 F.3d 1172, 1179 (10th Cir. 2011)).
“Vague and utterly conclusory assertions are insufficient.” Id. The harm must be imminent or
occurring at the time the complaint is filed, “allegations of past harm do not suffice.” Id. (citations
omitted). The “imminent danger” exception has a temporal limitation—[t]he exception is
construed narrowly and available only ‘for genuine emergencies,’ where ‘time is pressing’ and ‘a
threat . . . is real and proximate.’” Lynn v. Roberts, No. 11-3073-JAR, 2011 WL 3667171, at *2
(D. Kan. Aug. 22, 2011) (citation omitted). “Congress included an exception to the ‘three strikes’
rule for those cases in which it appears that judicial action is needed as soon as possible to prevent
serious physical injuries from occurring in the meantime.’” Id. (citation omitted).
1 Prior to filing the instant complaint, the Court finds at least three prior civil actions filed by Plaintiff that qualify as
“strikes” under § 1915(g). See Strader v. Reno County District Court, Case No. 20-3001-SAC (dismissed for failure
to state a claim on March 9, 2020) (Doc. 27) (D. Kan.); Strader v. Werholtz, Case No. 19-3102-SAC (dismissed for
failure to state a claim on October 4, 2019) (Doc. 61) (D. Kan.), appeal dismissed, Case No 19-3242 (appeal dismissed
as frivolous) (10th Cir. Dec. 30, 2019).
Case 5:25-cv-03260-JWL Document 3 Filed 12/05/25 Page 2 of 3

3
The Court has examined the complaint and finds no specific, credible showing that Plaintiff
is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. Plaintiff’s allegations of imminent danger are
based on speculation that his life is in danger due to allegations made in a television program. This
is not sufficient. See Akers v. Flannigan, 2020 WL 6156501, *2 (D. Kan. Oct. 21, 2020) (finding
that allegations that “Defendants’ ‘next tactic’” would subject him to harm were “speculative and
unsupported”). Accordingly, pursuant to § 1915(g) Plaintiff may not proceed in forma pauperis in
this civil action. Plaintiff is given time to pay the full $405.00 district court filing fee2 to the Court.
Failure to do so within the prescribed time will result in the dismissal of this matter without
prejudice and without additional prior notice.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that Plaintiff is granted until
January 5, 2026, to submit the $405.00 filing fee. 	The failure to respond by the deadline will
result in the dismissal of this matter without prejudice and without additional prior notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated December 5, 2025, in Kansas City, Kansas.
S/ John W. Lungstrum
JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2 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 $55.00 general administrative fee pursuant to § 1914(b) and the
District Court Miscellaneous Fee Schedule prescribed by the Judicial Conference of the United States.
Case 5:25-cv-03260-JWL Document 3 Filed 12/05/25 Page 3 of 3