Sowell v. The Twin Valley Behavioral Healthcare Facility et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION AT COLUMBUS
SALVATORE JULIANO SOWELL,
Plaintiff,
vs.
THE TWIN VALLEY BEHAVIORAL
HEALTHCARE FACILITY, et al.,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No. 2:26-cv-192
District Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.
Magistrate Judge Peter B. Silvain, Jr.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 1
Plaintiff Salvatore J. Sowell, an Ohio inmate proceeding without the assistance of counsel,
brings this action against Defendants the Twin Valley Behavioral Healthcare Facility, the Franklin
County Ohio Sheriff’s Administration, Zach Klein, and Dave Post for refusing to allow him access
to “discovery evidence” in another case he was litigating. (Doc. #1-2). This matter is before the
Court on Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. #1).2 For the reasons
below, it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion be denied.
Congress has restricted a prisoner’s right to proceed in forma pauperis. In accordance with
§ 804(d) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat.
1321, amending 28 U.S.C. § 1915:
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,
1 Attached is a NOTICE to the parties regarding objections to this Report and Recommendation.
2 The undersigned construes Plaintiff’s document captioned “Financial Disclosure / Fee-Waiver Affidavit and Order”
as a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See Doc. #1.
Case: 2:26-cv-00192-MHW-PBS Doc #: 4 Filed: 03/09/26 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
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 undersigned has determined that Plaintiff falls within the “three strike” provision
contemplated in § 1915(g) due to at least three lawsuits he filed that have been dismissed as
frivolous or for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). See Sowell v. United States of
America, Case No. 2:23-cv-1683; Sowell v. The Huntington Bank, Case No. 2:23-cv-4250; and
Sowell v. United States of America, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-3.
In view of Plaintiff’s three “strikes,” he may not proceed in forma pauperis unless he falls
within the statutory exception set forth in § 1915(g), which applies to prisoners who are “under
imminent danger of serious physical injury.” “[T]he imminent danger exception is essentially a
pleading requirement subject to the ordinary principles of notice pleading.” Vandiver v. Prison
Health Servs., Inc., 727 F.3d 580, 585 (6th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted). To satisfy this pleading standard, “[a] plaintiff must . . . allege[] facts from which a court,
informed by its judicial experience and common sense, could draw the reasonable inference that
he was under existing danger at the time he filed his complaint.” Id. (citing Taylor v. First Med.
Mgmt., 508 F. App’x 488, 492 (6th Cir. 2012)) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
With respect to Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendants, the undersigned is unable to
discern any facts from either Plaintiff’s Complaint or his other filings that plausibly allege he meets
the statutory exception set forth in § 1915(g). For these reasons, the undersigned makes the
following RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. 	Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. #1) be
DENIED.
2. 	Plaintiff be ORDERED to pay the full $405 filing fee ($350 filing fee, plus
$55 administrative fee) required to commence this action WITHIN
THIRTY DAYS of the date of the Court’s Order adopting this Report and
Case: 2:26-cv-00192-MHW-PBS Doc #: 4 Filed: 03/09/26 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
Recommendation, and that the Court advise Plaintiff that his failure to
timely pay the full $405 fee within thirty days will result in the dismissal of
this action
3. 	The Court CERTIFY under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal of any
Order adopting this Report and Recommendation would not be taken in
good faith.
March 9, 2026 	s/Peter B. Silvain, Jr.
Peter B. Silvain, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge
Case: 2:26-cv-00192-MHW-PBS Doc #: 4 Filed: 03/09/26 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

4
NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS
If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen
(14) days of the date of this Report, file and serve on all parties written objections to those specific
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made, together with supporting
authority for the objection(s). A District Judge of this Court shall make a de novo determination
of those portions of the Report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which
objection is made. Upon proper objections, a District Judge of this Court may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made herein, may receive further
evidence or may recommit this matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1).
The 	parties 	are 	specifically 	advised 	that 	failure 	to 	object 	to 	the 	Report 	and
Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to have the District Judge review the Report
and Recommendation de novo, and also operates as a waiver of the right to appeal the decision of
the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140
(1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
Case: 2:26-cv-00192-MHW-PBS Doc #: 4 Filed: 03/09/26 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>