Hamilton (ID 2100257032) v. Kansas Department of Corrections et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
PIERRE QUARAN HAMILTON,
Plaintiff,
v. 	CASE NO. 25-3259-JWL
KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is a pro se civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 	Plaintiff is
incarcerated at the Lansing Correctional Facility in Lansing, Kansas (“LCF”). Plaintiff has filed
a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 3).
Plaintiff claims that the Kansas Department of Corrections (“KDOC”) and LCF placed him
in custody based on a void journal entry. (Doc. 1–1, at 1–2.) Plaintiff alleges that he is falsely
imprisoned, and the Defendants have refused to release him. Id. at 2, 4, 5. Plaintiff alleges that
the State of Kansas has employed a corrupt state court judge. Id. at 4. Plaintiff also claims that
“LCF staff” have “begun starving [him] denying [him] ‘hot meals.’ ” Id. at 6. For relief, Plaintiff
seeks “750 million USD.” Id. at 7.
Plaintiff has filed a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 3). The Court
finds that Plaintiff is subject to the “three-strikes” provision under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 	Court
records 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
1 Prior to filing the instant Complaint, the Court finds at least 3 prior civil actions filed by Plaintiff which qualify as
“strikes” under § 1915(g). See Hamilton v. Unified Govt. of Kansas City, Kan., et al., Case No. 25-3125-JWL (D.
Case 5:25-cv-03259-JWL Document 5 Filed 12/04/25 Page 1 of 3

2
may proceed in forma pauperis only if he establishes a threat of “imminent danger of serious
physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
“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 	Davis v. GEO Group Corr., 696 F. App’x 851, 854 (10th Cir. 2017) (unpublished)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).
The Court has examined the Complaint and finds no showing of imminent danger of
serious physical injury. 	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. 	If he fails to pay the full fee within the prescribed time, the Complaint will be
dismissed based upon Plaintiff’s failure to satisfy the statutory district court filing fee required by
28 U.S.C. § 1914.
Kan. Sept. 24, 2025) (dismissed for failure to state a claim); Hamilton v. Wyandotte Cnty. Dist. Ct., et al., Case No. 25-
3115-JWL (D. Kan. June 18, 2025) (dismissed as repetitive and frivolous); Hamilton v. Wyandotte Cnty. Dist. Ct., et
al, Case No. 25-3098-JWL (D. Kan. June 17, 2025) (dismissed for failure to state a claim).
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-03259-JWL Document 5 Filed 12/04/25 Page 2 of 3

3
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 3) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is granted until January 5, 2026, to submit
the $405.00 filing fee. The failure to submit the fee by that date will result in the dismissal of this
matter without prejudice and without additional prior notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated December 4, 2025, in Kansas City, Kansas.
S/ John W. Lungstrum
JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 5:25-cv-03259-JWL Document 5 Filed 12/04/25 Page 3 of 3