McGore v. Artis et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED
WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF FEES AND COSTS AND DISMISSING
COMPLAINT
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Darryl McGore’s
(“McGore”) pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
McGore is a state inmate currently confined at the Thumb Correctional
Facility in Lapeer, Michigan. Having reviewed this case, and McGore’s
litigation history in the federal courts, this Court dismisses the case without
prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) provides that “[t]he clerk of each district
court shall require the parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding
in such court, whether by original process, removal or otherwise, to pay a
filing fee of $350 ....” See also Owens v. Keeling, 461 F.3d 763, 773 (6th
Cir. 2006). McGore failed to provide the $350.00 filing fee, plus a $ 55.00
administrative fee, when he filed his complaint.
DARRYL MCGORE,
Plaintiff,
v.
F. ARTIS et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 25-11899
Honorable Shalina D. Kumar
Mag. Judge David R. Grand
Case 4:25-cv-11899-SDK-DRG ECF No. 4, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/23/25 Page 1 of 7

2
The Prisoner Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) states that “if a
prisoner brings a civil action or files an appeal in forma pauperis, the
prisoner shall be required to pay the full amount of a filing fee.” 28 U.S.C. §
1915(b)(1) (as amended). See also In Re Prison Litigation Reform Act, 105
F.3d 1131, 1138 (6th Cir. 1997). The in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a), does allow prisoners the opportunity to make a “downpayment” of
a partial filing fee and subsequently pay the remaining fee in installments.
See Boussum v. Washington, 649 F. Supp. 3d 525, 529 (E.D. Mich. 2023);
reconsideration denied, 655 F. Supp. 3d 636 (E.D. Mich. 2023). Because
McGore did not submit the necessary filing fee for a civil action, the Court
will construe his complaint as a request to proceed in forma pauperis. See
Szymanski v. U.S. Marshall, No. 14-CV-10305, 2014 WL 1308821, at * 1
(E.D. Mich. Mar. 28, 2014).
McGore has had at least eight prior cases that were dismissed for
being frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted. See McGore v. Hudson, No. 1:98-cv-10080 (E.D. Mich.
June 2, 1998); McGore v. Hunter, No. 2:96-cv-74326 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 15,
1996); McGore v. Hunter, No. 2:96-cv-74327 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 10, 1997);
McGore v. Jones, No. 2:96-cv-74614 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 8, 1996); McGore v.
Michigan Supreme Court Judges, No. 1:94-cv-517 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 25,
Case 4:25-cv-11899-SDK-DRG ECF No. 4, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/23/25 Page 2 of 7

3
1995); McGore v. Nardi, No. 2:93-cv-137 (W.D. Mich. Aug. 2, 1993);
McGore v. Stine, No. 2:93-cv-112 (W.D. Mich. July 26, 1993); McGore v.
Stine, No. 2:93-cv-77 (W.D. Mich. Apr. 30, 1993).
Additionally, he has numerous times been denied leave to proceed in
forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the “three strikes” rule, because
of these frivolity dismissals. See e.g. McGore v. Artis, No. 1:25-CV-516,
2025 WL 1392289 (W.D. Mich. May 14, 2025); McGore v. Internal Revenue
Comm’r, No. 2:25-CV-21, 2025 WL 1293552 (W.D. Mich. May 5, 2025);
McGore v. Hood, et. al., No. 24-cv-10999 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 12, 2024);
McGore v. United States Dist. Ct. Judges, No. 24-cv-10890, 2024 WL
1889211 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 30, 2024); McGore v. Roberts, No. 19-cv-13647,
2019 WL 7067086 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 23, 2019); McGore v. U.S. Supreme
Ct. Justs., No. 2:19-cv-244, 2019 WL 6799099 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 13, 2019);
McGore v. Michigan State Police, No. 2:19-cv-228, 2019 WL 6522144
(W.D. Mich. Dec. 4, 2019); McGore v. Lesatz, No. 2:19-cv-51, 2019 WL
1109761 (W.D. Mich. Mar. 11, 2019); McGore v. Schuette, No. 2:18-cv-
103, 2018 WL 577320 (W.D. Mich. Nov. 2, 2018); McGore v. Shenk, No.
CV 17-13320, 2017 WL 11473286 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 16, 2017); McGore v.
Trinity Food Grp., No. 2:17-cv-13135, 2017 WL 4348844 (E.D. Mich. Sept.
29, 2017); McGore v. United States Supreme Court, et. al., No. 14-cv-
Case 4:25-cv-11899-SDK-DRG ECF No. 4, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/23/25 Page 3 of 7

4
14176 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 8, 2015); McGore v. Lutz, No. 2:09-cv-13031, 2009
WL 2959874 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 11, 2009).
The PLRA states that a federal court should dismiss a prisoner’s case
if, on three or more previous occasions, a federal court dismissed the
incarcerated plaintiff’s action because it was frivolous, malicious, or failed
to state a claim for which relief may be granted. See, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)
(1996); Thaddeus-X v. Blatter, 175 F.3d 378, 400 (6th Cir. 1999); Witzke v.
Hiller, 966 F. Supp. 538, 540 (E.D. Mich. 1997). The “three strikes”
provision of the PLRA prohibits a prisoner like McGore, who has had three
prior suits dismissed for being frivolous, from proceeding in forma pauperis
in a civil rights suit absent an allegation that the prisoner is in imminent
danger of serious physical injury. See Clemons v. Young, 240 F. Supp. 2d
639, 641 (E.D. Mich. 2003). A federal district court may sua sponte raise
the three strikes provision of the PLRA on its own initiative, Witzke, 966 F.
Supp. at 539, and a federal court is allowed to take judicial notice of an
incarcerated plaintiff’s prior dismissals for purposes of § 1915(g). See
Taylor v. United States, 161 F. App’x 483, 485-86 (6th Cir. 2005).
As previously stated, McGore has had at least eight prior civil rights
complaints which were dismissed for being frivolous, malicious, or failing to
state a claim upon which relief could be granted and has been informed by
Case 4:25-cv-11899-SDK-DRG ECF No. 4, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/23/25 Page 4 of 7

5
numerous federal judges that he was precluded from proceeding in forma
pauperis in these other civil rights actions pursuant to § 1915(g) because of
these prior dismissals. The fact that a number of his cases were dismissed
prior to the enactment of the PLRA does not prohibit them from being used
to deny him permission to proceed without prepayment of fees or costs.
There is no impermissible effect in applying the three strikes provision
contained in § 1915(g) to complaints filed prior to April 26, 1996, the
enactment date of the PLRA. See Wilson v. Yaklich, 148 F.3d 596, 602-03
(6th Cir. 1998). Dismissals of prior actions entered before the effective date
of the PLRA may be counted towards the “three strikes” allowed inmates
under the PLRA to prevent an inmate from proceeding in forma pauperis in
a civil action. Id. at 604.
In the instant case, McGore alleges in his complaint that he is in
imminent danger. The main allegation in his complaint is that he is being
denied the privilege of using the day room at prison. However, McGore has
previously filed a lawsuit challenging the reduction of his day room
privileges. The judge dismissed that complaint pursuant to 1915(g), finding
that the decrease in day room privileges for McGore did not constitute
imminent danger so as to allow him to proceed in forma pauperis. McGore
v. Artis, 2025 WL 1392289, at * 3. This allegation of imminent danger does
Case 4:25-cv-11899-SDK-DRG ECF No. 4, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/23/25 Page 5 of 7

6
not qualify to allow McGore to proceed in forma pauperis in spite of his
eight prior frivolity dismissals because it appears to be nothing more than
“a thinly veiled rehashing” of a similar claim made by him in a prior lawsuit
that was rejected. See Chance v. Tennessee, 47 F. App’x 762, 763 (6th
Cir. 2002).
Next, McGore claims that the electrical outlets or receptacles in the
prison day room are so defective that they are causing television sets and
“boom box” radios to explode, and cracks in the prison walls are allowing
rodents, field mice, and insects to infect the prison. These allegations of
imminent danger appear to be not only conclusory and unsupported, but
downright delusional or irrational.
A district court may deny a prisoner leave to proceed pursuant to §
1915(g) when that prisoner’s claims of imminent danger are “conclusory or
ridiculous,” or are “‘clearly baseless’ (i.e. are fantastic or delusional and rise
to the level of ‘irrational or wholly incredible).’” Vandiver v. Prison Health
Servs., Inc., 727 F.3d 580, 585 (6th Cir. 2013). As such, McGore is not
entitled to invoke the imminent danger exception to § 1915(g) because this
portion of his complaint contains insufficient facts and details to establish
that he is in danger of imminent physical injury, or are otherwise delusional,
irrational, or wholly incredible. Rittner v. Kinder, 290 F. App’x 796, 798 (6th
Case 4:25-cv-11899-SDK-DRG ECF No. 4, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/23/25 Page 6 of 7

7
Cir. 2008). For these reasons, McGore’s civil rights complaint shall be
dismissed pursuant to § 1915(g).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that McGore is DENIED in forma
pauperis status and the complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). McGore may resume any of
the claims dismissed under § 1915(g) if he pays the filing fee under the fee
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1914. Witzke, 966 F. Supp. at 540.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that because McGore has had eight prior
cases dismissed against him for being frivolous, malicious, or failing to
state a claim, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) bars him from appealing in forma
pauperis and the Court refuses to certify that any appeal from this dismissal
would be in good faith. See Drummer v. Luttrell, 75 F. Supp. 2d 796, 805-
806 (W.D. Tenn. 1999).
s/Shalina D. Kumar
Hon. Shalina D. Kumar
Dated: October 23, 2025 	United States District Judge
Case 4:25-cv-11899-SDK-DRG ECF No. 4, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/23/25 Page 7 of 7