Smith #267009 v. People of the State of Michigan et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
DERRICK LEE SMITH #267009, Case No. 2:25-cv-00310
Plaintiff, Hon. Jane M. Beckering
U.S. District Judge
v.
UNKNOWN PARTY, et al.,
Defendants
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pro se Plaintiff state prisoner Derick Lee Smith filed this complaint under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 against several unknown parties including the People of the State of
Michigan, the State Appellate Defenders Office and various Michigan County
administrators including: County Executives, District Court Judges, Magistrates,
Probable Cause Conference Directors, District Courts Clerks, and others. (ECF No.
1.) Plaintiff seeks to bring a class action lawsuit asserting that criminal defendants’
rights have been violated under Michigan law because arraignments were conducted
by Zoom.
The PLRA amended the procedural rules governing a prisoner’s request for the
privilege of proceeding in forma pauperis. As the United States Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit has stated, the PLRA was “aimed at the skyrocketing numbers of
claims filed by prisoners—many of which are meritless—and the corresponding
burden those filings have placed on the federal courts.” Hampton v. Hobbs, 106 F.3d
1281, 1286 (6th Cir. 1997). For that reason, Congress created economic incentives to
Case 2:25-cv-00310-JMB-MV ECF No. 5, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/13/26 Page 1
of 4

2
prompt a prisoner to “stop and think” before filing a complaint. Id. For example, a
prisoner is liable for the civil action filing fee, and if the prisoner qualifies to proceed
in forma pauperis, the prisoner may pay the fee through partial payments as outlined
in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). The constitutionality of the fee requirements of the PLRA has
been upheld by the Sixth Circuit. Id. at 1288.
In addition, another provision reinforces the “stop and think” aspect of the
PLRA by preventing a prisoner from proceeding in forma pauperis when the prisoner
repeatedly files meritless lawsuits. Known as the “three-strikes” rule, the provision
states:
In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in
a civil action or proceeding under [the section governing proceedings 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). The statutory restriction “[i]n no event,” found in § 1915(g), is
express and unequivocal. The statute does allow an exception for a prisoner who is
“under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” The Sixth Circuit has upheld
the constitutionality of the three-strikes rule against arguments that it violates equal
protection, the right of access to the courts, and due process, and that it constitutes a
bill of attainder and is ex post facto legislation. Wilson v. Yaklich, 148 F.3d 596, 604–
06 (6th Cir. 1998).
Plaintiff has been an active litigant in the federal courts in Michigan. In more
than three of Plaintiff’s lawsuits, the Court entered dismissals on the grounds that
Case 2:25-cv-00310-JMB-MV ECF No. 5, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/13/26 Page 2
of 4

3
the cases were frivolous, malicious, and/or failed to state a claim. See Smith v. Fager
et al., No. 1:24-cv-308 (W.D. Mich. Aug. 27, 2024); Smith v. Maloney et al., No. 1:23-
cv-421 (W.D. Mich. May 16, 2023); Smith v. Jones et al., No. 1:22-cv-1082 (W.D. Mich.
Feb. 17, 2023); Smith v. Otto et al., No. 1:22-cv-1028 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 17, 2023); Smith
v. Brock et al., No. 1:22-cv-634 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 21, 2023); Smith v. Schiebner et al.,
No. 1:21-cv-878 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 25, 2022); North et al. v. Scanlon et al., No. 1:21-cv-
518 (W.D. Mich. Jul. 13, 2021); Smith v. Washington et al., No. 2:18-cv-10736 (E.D.
Mich. Oct. 5, 2018); Smith v. Hall et al., No. 1:18-cv-277 (W.D. Mich. Apr. 3, 2018);
Smith v. Wayne Cnty. Prosecutor’s Office et al., No. 2:09-cv-12287 (E.D. Mich. June
25, 2009). All of Plaintiff’s dismissals were entered after enactment of the PLRA on
April 26, 1996.
In addition, Plaintiff has been denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis under
the three-strikes rule in at least six cases. See Smith v. Salinas et al., 2:25-cv-252
(W.D. Mich. Dec. 9, 2025); Cardello-Smith v. Salinas et al., No. 2:25-cv-246 (W.D.
Mich. Nov. 4, 2025); Smith v. Ionia Correctional Facility et al., No. 1:24-cv-353 (W.D.
Mich. Apr. 29, 2024); Smith v. Washington et al., No. 1:20-cv-1211 (W.D. Mich. Mar.
2, 2021); Smith v. Writeaprisoner.com Inc. et al., No. 1:20-cv-1201 (W.D. Mich. Mar.
5, 2021); Smith v. Penman et al., No. 1:18-cv-1212 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 13, 2019).
Moreover, Plaintiff’s allegations do not fall within the “imminent danger”
exception to the three-strikes rule. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Accordingly, it is recommended that the Court conclude that Plaintiff is barred
from proceeding in forma pauperis under § 1915(g). Since Plaintiff also has not paid
Case 2:25-cv-00310-JMB-MV ECF No. 5, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/13/26 Page 3
of 4

4
the $405.00 civil action filing fees applicable to those not permitted to proceed in
forma pauperis, it is further recommended that the Court dismiss this action without
prejudice. See Dupree v. Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234, 1236 (11th Cir. 2002) (“[T]he proper
procedure is for the district court to dismiss the complaint without prejudice when it
denies the prisoner leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to the three strikes
provision of § 1915(g).”). Plaintiff is free to refile his complaint as a new action in this
Court if he submits the filing fees at the time that he initiates the new action.
NOTICE TO PARTIES: Objections to this Report and Recommendation must
be served on opposing parties and filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen
(14) days of receipt of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); W.D. Mich. LCivR 72.3(b). Failure to file timely objections
constitutes a waiver of any further right to appeal. United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d
947 (6th Cir. 1981). See also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
Dated: January 13, 2026 /s/ Maarten Vermaat
MAARTEN VERMAAT
U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-00310-JMB-MV ECF No. 5, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/13/26 Page 4
of 4