United States District Court, D. Maryland
Grimm United States District Judge.
Enow filed this prisoner civil rights complaint pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983 with a Motion for Leave to Proceed in
Forma Pauperis on December 1, 2016. ECF Nos. 1, 2. Enow has
"three strikes" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and
is barred from filing cases unless he pays the filing fee or
demonstrates that he is in imminent danger of serious
physical injury. See Enow v. Feinstein, et al, No.
PWG-15-3348 (D. Md.) (assigning Enow a third
"strike" under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(g)). After review of this lengthy complaint,
the Court finds no basis to excuse him from paying the full
filing fee. Accordingly, the Court will deny the Motion for
Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis and grant Enow
twenty-eight days to pay the $400.00 filing fee and to file
an amended complaint which conforms to the requirements of
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). Failure to pay the full filing fee and to
cure the deficiencies in the Complaint within this time will
result in dismissal of this case without prejudice or further
notice from the Court.
are reviewed Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) which
requires that they contain "a short and plain statement
of the claim." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 8(d)(I) further requires that each averment
"be simple, concise, and direct." Fed.R.Civ.P.
8(d)(1). Such a statement must give a defendant fair notice
of plaintiffs claims. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A.,
534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002). Detailed factual allegations are
not required, but "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements
of the cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, do not suffice." Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662 (2009), citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). The Court is also
mindful that it must liberally construe the complaints of
self-represented litigants to address constitutional
deprivations. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89,
94 (2007); Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th
Cir. 1978). Nevertheles,, "principles requiring generous
construction of pro se complaints are not
... without limits." Beaudett v.
City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985).
Statements which are unnecessarlly prolix place "an
unjustified burden on the court and the party who must
respond to [them] because they are forced to select the
relevant material from a mass of verbiage."
Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir.1988)
(quoting 5 Charles Wright & Arthur Miller, Fed. Prac.
& Proc. S 1281, at 365 (1969)); see also North
Carolina v. McGuirt, 114 F.App'x 555, 558-59 (4th
Cir. 2004). As filed here, the Complaint does not satisfy
Complaint names 20 defendants and is comprised of 18
handwritten pages, 149 pages of attachments, and a one-page
declaration. It presents numerous allegations concerning
incidents unrelated in time or place. At least one allegation
overlaps with or repeats claims previously filed in this
alleges that on July 28, 2016, he was subjected to cruel and
inhumane conditions when transported from Jessup Correctional
Institution (JCI) to Eastern Correctional Institution (ECI)
by the Maryland Correctional Transportation Unit (MCTU) in a
van that stopped at Patuxent Institution to pick up other
inmates. While waiting for other inmates to board, Enow
remained inside the transport vehicle for over twenty minutes
without air conditioning. Enow claims the temperature reached
approximately 115° F, although he does not explain how he
arrived at this measurement. He claims he suffered migraine
headaches, insomnia, nose bleeding, anxiety, nausea, and
dizziness as a result of the heat and lack of ventilation.
alleges that on February 6, 2016, Officers J. Hadesty and R.
Ryan began harassing him with verbal threats of physical harm
and false accusations, causing him to be placed in
disciplinary segregation. Enow claims that for 15 hours
between February 6, 2016 and February 7, 2016, he was placed
in a cold cell without heat or a mattress while wearing only
a jumpsuit. He claims he suffered chest pain, inflammation of
the lungs, numbness in his lips, genitalia, hands and legs,
headaches, stomach pain dizziness, and nasal congestion.
next alleges that on April 18, 2016, he was assaulted by
unidentified ECI officials for filing a complaint against
corrections officers at the Maryland Correctional
Institution-Hagerstown. Enow provides no other details of the
assault. He states he was placed in a strip cell without
clothing or a mattress for eight days and suffered extreme
emotional distress, embarrassment, back and body pain,
migraine headaches, chest pain, and nasal congestion. He
asserts the cell floor was filthy, there were feces on the
walls, and the cell was infested with vermin.
allegations also pertain to his incarceration at the Maryland
Correctional Institution (MCI) between April 21, 2015 and
December 3, 2015. He claims that he was placed in
administrative segregation at MCI with inmates classified as
security threat group members, thereby placing him at risk of
harm. Notably, he does not allege that any incidents
occurred. Enow claims that while housed at ECI he was
subjected to inadequate ventilation, tobacco smoke, mold and
fungus, and vermin. He self-reports suffering food poisoning
and skin diseases.
relief for the harms alleged, Enow seeks $300, 000 in damages
and injunctive relief of an unstated nature. The Court will
grant Enow twenty-eight days to amend the Complaint to comply
with the Federal Rules. He is directed to limit this filing
to no more than fifteen handwritten pages, written on only
one side of each page. He must specify the name of each
Defendant involved in each incident, identify the federal law
or constitutional provision violated, and state the injury he
have held that the "imminent danger" exception to S
1915(g)'s "three strikes" rule must be
construed narrowly and applied only "for genuine
emergencies, " where "time is pressing" and
"a threat ... is real and proximate" to the alleged
official misconduct. Lewis v. Sullivan, 279 F.3d
526, 531 (7th Cir. 2002). "The exception focuses on the
risk that the conduct complained of threatens continuing or
future injury, not on whether the inmate deserves a remedy
for past misconduct." Martin v. Shelton, 319
F.3d 1048, 1000 (8th Cir. 2003). The bar for establishing
imminent danger, although high, is not insurmountable.
If limited to situations in which, say, a beating is ongoing,
no prisoner will find solace; once the beating starts, it is
too late to avoid the physical injury; and once the beating
is over the prisoner is no longer in "imminent
danger" .. . Reading the imminent-danger language ...