United States District Court, D. Maryland
L. Hollander United States District Judge
18, 2016, the court received a prisoner civil rights action
(ECF 1) filed by Mich. Aurel,  an inmate confined at the North
Branch Correctional Institution ("NBCI"). The
complaint, filed on toilet paper, claims that Aurel had been
designated for housing on disciplinary segregation and his
two boxes of legal materials had been confiscated. He seeks
$10, 000, 000 in damages. The matter was instituted as a suit
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Aurel v. Warden,
Civil Action No. ELH-16-1494 (D. Md.) ("Aurel I").
2, 2016, Aurel filed another complaint (ECF 1), using a 42
U.S.C. § 1983 form, and a motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis (ECF 2). See Aurel v. Nines, et al.,
Civil Action No. ELH-16-1839 (D. Md.). ("Aurel
II"). He again alleges that his legal papers and law
books have been confiscated, in violation of his rights under
the First Amendment. In addition, Aurel complains that
photographs of his family and jewelry were confiscated, lost,
or taken. He seeks the return of the materials and $10, 000
in damages for each day his materials remain seized.
Aurel II, ECF 1.
the jewelry, Aurel asserts that it is valued at $7, 500. He
claims it was mailed to his daughter through the NBCI
mailroom in February or March of 22016, but was never
received. See Aurel II, ECF 1 at 3.
as the two complaints raise similar claims, they shall be
consolidated for all purposes.
is litigious. These cases represent the twenty-sixth and
twenty-seventh actions that Aurel has filed in this court
over the past five years. In three of those cases Aurel was
granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Those cases were
dismissed as frivolous or for the failure to state a claim.
He was notified that the dismissals constituted
"strikes" under § 1915(e),  and that a
prisoner is not allowed to bring a civil action under the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915 if he "has, on 3 or
more 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. §
noted, three of Aurel’s prior cases in this Court were
dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Therefore, he may
not procced in this action unless he (1) submits the $400
civil filing fee or (2) moves to proceed in forma pauperis
and provides particularized factual allegations establishing
that he is subject to imminent danger of serious physical
does not allege he faces imminent danger of serious physical
injury at the time he filed his complaints, and there is no
plausible basis for concluding such a danger existed. See
Sayre v. King, 2014 WL 4414509, * 3 (N.D. W.Va. 2014)
(prisoner’s claim that he was denied access to all of
his legal materials does not rise to the level of imminent
danger of serious physical injury satisfying § 1915(g)
exception). Aurel is forewarned that should he attempt to
file future civil rights actions in this court, they must be
accompanied by the civil filing fee. In the alternative, a
complaint filed with an indigency application must assert and
demonstrate that Aurel is in imminent danger of serious
Aurel’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis shall be
denied and his consolidated complaint shall be dismissed,
without prejudice, by separate Order.
The Maryland Department of Public
Safety and Correctional Services ("DPSCS") lists
plaintiff as Mich. Aurel on its "inmate locator"
website. Although plaintiff was prosecuted as Aurel Mich. in
the Maryland courts, I will refer to him per the DPSCS
designation of Mich. Aurel.
 In such cases, sufficient due process
is afforded an inmate if he has access to an adequate
post-deprivation remedy. See Parratt v. Taylor, 451
U.S. 527, 542-44 (1981), overruled on other grounds by
Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986). The right to
seek damages and injunctive relief in Maryland courts
constitutes an adequate post deprivation remedy. See
Juncker v. Tinney, 549 F.Supp. 574, 579 (D. Md. 1982).
The Supreme Court extended its Parratt holding to
intentional deprivations of property. See Hudson v.
Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984). Therefore, assuming
Aurel’s personal property was lost or intentionally
taken, as Aurel implies, such a claim does not rise to a
See Aurel v. United States.,
Civil Action No. JKB-11-1297 (D. Md.); Aurel v.
Wexford, Civil Action No. ELH-13-3721 (D. Md.);
Aurel v. Jefferson, et al., Civil Action No.
ELH-14-352 (D. Md.); Aurel v. Shearin, et al., Civil
Action No. ELH-14-374 (D. Md.); Aurel v. Jessup
Correctional Institution Mail Room, Civil Action No.
ELH-14-958 (D. Md.); Mich v. Nice, et al., Civil
Action No. JKB-14-1397 (D. Md.); Aurel v. North Branch
Correctional Institution, et al., ELH-14-3036 (D. Md.);
Mich v. Yacenech, et al., Civil Action No.
JKB-14-1473 (D. Md.); Aurel v. Wexford Health Sources,
Inc., et al., Civil Action No. ELH-15-1797 (D. Md.);
Aurel v. Pennington, et al., Civil Action No.
JKB-14-1859 (D. Md.); Aurel v. Mail Room at North Branch
Correctional Institution, et al., ELH-14-2813 (D. Md.);
Aurel v. Warden, ELH-15-258 (D. Md.); Aurel v.
Warden, ELH-15-1127 (D. Md.); Aurel v. Warden.,
ELH-15-1128 (D. Md.); Aurel v. Miller, et al.,
ELH-15-1422 (D. Md.); Aurel v. Kammauf, et al.,
ELH-15-1581 (D. Md.); Aurel v. Gainer, et al.,
ELH-15-1750 (D. Md.); Aurel v. Twigg, ELH-15-1920
(D. Md.); Aurel v. Jones, et al., ELH-15-1928 (D.
Md.); Aurel v. Rose., ELH-15-2604 (D. Md.);
Aurel v. Thrasher, ELH-15-3142 (D. Md.); Aurel
v. Sawyers, et al., Civil ...