Cox v. Hinman et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
MICHAEL COX, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 1:26-cv-00019-NCC
)
UNKNOWN HINMAN and )
UNKNOWN HARRIS, )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court for review of self-represented Plaintiff Michael E. Cox’s
Application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. 2. For the reasons discussed below, the
Court will deny the Application and dismiss this case without prejudice. The Court will also
deny as moot Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel.
II. Background
Plaintiff is incarcerated in the Cape Girardeau County Jail. He filed the Complaint
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against correctional officer Hinman and Sergeant Harris in their
official capacities. Plaintiff sets forth his statement of claim in a long and confusing narrative,
and it is difficult to discern his claims for relief. Condensed and summarized, Plaintiff alleges as
follows.
Harris ordered a correctional officer to dispose of Plaintiff’s legal papers, stamps,
envelopes, paper, and Bible. Next, Plaintiff writes: “My left leg is shorter 1 ½ inches shorter
than the right one and I can’t stand up long I was hit in my jaw by C.O. Hinman with a elbow the
hold left side of my face went black. He knocked out a teeth I have to have one pull.” Doc. 1 at
4 (The Court quotes the Complaint verbatim without noting or correcting errors in the original).
Case: 1:26-cv-00019-NCC Doc. #: 4 Filed: 02/17/26 Page: 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Plaintiff states he is seeing black dots and must sit down or he will faint. He states he tried to
spit blood from his mouth onto the floor “thats when he tryed to break my Hands and Arms See
Video Camera in S-Pod . . . and See C.O. Hinman Body Cam.” Doc. 1 at 4-5. Plaintiff states
that after the assault, Hinman refused to let him see the nurse. Plaintiff refused a breathing
treatment to avoid riding in the elevator with Hinman because Hinman said he would kill him
and get away with it. Hinman also “pull out pepper spray to spray me videos and body-cam will
show it all.” Id. at 5.
Next, Plaintiff writes: “On 1/16/26 I seen Sgt. Harris and he told me I had assaulted his
officer and I told him I wasn’t written up for assault I was written up for disobeying and order.
That a lie I caught the handcuffs See Videos, Cameras in S-Pod . . . and Hinman Body-Cam.” Id.
Lastly, Plaintiff states a doctor told him he could have orthopedic shoes. Plaintiff states he wore
orthopedic shoes on the street, and that stopped his pain. He writes: “I’m in pain every day and
under imminent danger of serious physical injury. Sgt. Harris took our Bibles and Koran and
legal work and threw it away that’s our 1st Amendment to have our Bibles and Koran that a
violation of our 1st Amendment.” Id. at 6.
Where the form complaint provides space for Plaintiff to describe his injuries, he writes:
“I had 2 teeth knocked out and I’m waiting now to get another one pulled and mouth busted and
jaw bruised and ear infection and see black dot see nurses report and left hand thumb. Hurt to
move. See videos.” Id. Plaintiff does not clearly allege that either Defendant or any other jail
official is denying or intentionally delaying his access to orthopedic shoes or any form of
medical care. Plaintiff seeks damages totaling $700,000.
Case: 1:26-cv-00019-NCC Doc. #: 4 Filed: 02/17/26 Page: 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
II. Discussion
Plaintiff is a “prisoner” as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h), and subject to the provisions
of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 (“PLRA”). The PLRA “enacted a variety of reforms
designed to filter out the bad [prisoner] claims and facilitate consideration of the good.” Jones v.
Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 204 (2007). One of those reforms is what is commonly described as the
“three strikes” provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Orr v. Clements, 688 F.3d 463, 464 (8th Cir.
2012). It provides:
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. § 1915(g).
Review of this Court’s files shows that Plaintiff has, on 3 prior occasions while
incarcerated or detained, brought an action that was dismissed on the grounds that it failed to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Cox v. Unknown Kym, No. 1:15-cv-00083-
ACL (E.D. Mo. May 20, 2015); Cox v. Davis, et al., No. 1:18-cv-00185-RLW (E.D. Mo. Sept. 5,
2018); Cox v. Carter, et al., No. 1:20-cv-00012-DDN (E.D. Mo. May 12, 2020). As a result, this
Court cannot grant Plaintiff’s Application to proceed in forma pauperis unless his Complaint
demonstrates that he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g).
Having thoroughly reviewed and liberally construed the Complaint, the Court finds it
does not show that Plaintiff is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. Plaintiff alleges
that Hinman hurt him in the past and refused to let him see the nurse, said he would kill him and
Case: 1:26-cv-00019-NCC Doc. #: 4 Filed: 02/17/26 Page: 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
get away with it, and pulled out a can of pepper spray. But Plaintiff’s allegations of past harm do
not trigger the exception to section 1915(g), see Ashley v. Dilworth, 147 F.3d 715, 717 (8th Cir.
1998), and Plaintiff does not allege facts that would allow this Court to conclude that he
currently faces a specific and genuine threat of serious physical injury. Plaintiff also alleges he
was deprived of legal papers, stamps, stationery, and religious texts, but clearly those allegations
do not describe imminent danger of serious physical injury. Plaintiff’s remaining allegations are
simply too vague to allow the Court to conclude that Plaintiff is in imminent danger of serious
physical injury.
As a result, the Court cannot allow Plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will
therefore deny Plaintiff’s Application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss this case without
prejudice to being refiled as a fully-paid complaint. Because the Court is dismissing this case at
this time, the Court will deny as moot Plaintiff’s motion seeking appointed counsel.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Application for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, Doc. 2, is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice to
being refiled as a fully-paid complaint. A separate order of dismissal will be entered herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel, Doc. 3, is
DENIED as moot.
Dated this 17th day of February 2026.
__________________________________________
JOHN A. ROSS
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 1:26-cv-00019-NCC Doc. #: 4 Filed: 02/17/26 Page: 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>