Lucy v. Securus Technologies et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
WILLIAM N. LUCY, AIS# 204880 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
vs. 	) 	Civil Action No. 24-00028-KD-N
)
SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER
This action is before the Court on Plaintiff William N. Lucy’s motion to proceed in forma
pauperis on appeal (doc. 26). Upon consideration, and for the reasons set forth herein, the motion
is denied.
A. Background
Lucy, an inmate at Fountain Correctional Facility, filed a civil action in the Middle
District of Alabama against Securus Technologies, Inc.; its “unknown” Chairman of the Board of
Directors, President, and Chief Executive Officer; and Captain K. Albritton in her personal and
official capacity (doc. 1). He alleged conspiracy to defraud, fraud, breach of contract, and
emotional distress because an “electronic device called a ‘tablet’” which he was purchasing from
Securus “stopped working.” Captain Albritton allegedly failed to stop the deduction of payments
from Lucy’s inmate account, after he “turned his tablet in” to the Securus agent for replacement.
Lucy also filed a motion to proceed without prepayment of fees (doc. 2). Over Lucy’s objections,
the action was transferred to the Southern District of Alabama pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)
and 1404(a) (doc. 6)
In this District, the Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation that Lucy’s
Case 1:24-cv-00028-KD-N Doc# 30 Filed 07/08/25 Page 1 of 3 PageID#
<pageID>

2
motion to proceed without prepayment of fees be denied and the action dismissed without
prejudice (doc. 8). The Magistrate Judge found Lucy had filed at least three federal court actions
which were dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. The Magistrate Judge also found that Lucy’s allegations in his complaint “do not
demonstrate that he faces imminent danger of serious physical injury or harm.” (Id., p. 4).
Therefore, Lucy was precluded by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) from proceeding unless he paid
the filing fee at the time he initiated the action or pled that he was in “imminent danger of serious
physical injury” (Id.). Since, neither exception was present, the Magistrate Judge recommended
dismissal without prejudice and denial of Lucy’s motion to proceed without prepayment of fees.
Lucy objected and argued that he was in imminent danger because of understaffing,
overcrowding, violence, drug abuse, and lack of medical care at the prison (doc. 11). He also
stated that Securus had “breached our contract for repair” and not replaced his tablet (Id.). The
Court adopted the Report and Recommendation and entered final judgment (docs. 12, 13).
Lucy filed a motion to alter, amend or vacate pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (doc. 14).
His motion was denied (doc. 15). Lucy sought relief from the order denying his Rule 59(e) by
filing two motions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) (docs. 16, 18). The motions were denied
(docs. 17, 19). Lucy filed another Rule 59(e) motion to alter, amend, or vacate the last order
entered (doc. 19, order; doc. 20, motion). Lucy’s motion was denied (doc. 21). Lucy filed
another motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1) and 60(b)(6) for relief from the last order
entered (doc. 21, order, doc. 22, motion). His motion was denied (doc. 23).
Lucy then moved for enlargement of time to appeal (doc. 24). His motion was granted
(doc. 25) and he timely filed his notice of appeal (doc. 26).
Case 1:24-cv-00028-KD-N Doc# 30 Filed 07/08/25 Page 2 of 3 PageID#
<pageID>

3
B. Analysis
Lucy now seeks leave to appeal in forma pauperis (doc. 27). However, 28 U.S.C. §
1915(g) also applies to appeals. The statute sets forth as follows:
(g) In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil
action or proceeding under this section 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.A. § 1915(g).
Lucy did not pay the appellate filing fee and did not argue that he is under imminent
danger of serious physical injury (doc. 27, motion to proceed in forma pauperis). Smith v. Ward,
848 Fed. Appx. 853, 856 (11th Cir. 2021) (“A three-strike prisoner must show he is in imminent
danger at the time that he seeks to file his suit in district court or seeks to proceed with his appeal
or files a motion to proceed IFP.”) (internal quotations and citation omitted). Accordingly,
Lucy’s motion is denied.
DONE and ORDERED this 8th day of July 2025.
s/ Kristi K. DuBose
KRISTI K. DuBOSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:24-cv-00028-KD-N Doc# 30 Filed 07/08/25 Page 3 of 3 PageID#
<pageID>