United States District Court, D. Maryland
JEROME L. GRIMES Plaintiff,
MRS. ENGRAM ANTOINETTE WALLS JANE DOE RONALD DOE OFFICER ROMAN SHERIFF OFFICER LOPEZ KAREN PEREZ Defendants.
Xinis United States District Judge.
April 10, 2017, the above-captioned complaint and motion to
proceed in forma pauperis were filed by Jerome L.
Grimes in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Louisiana. ECF Nos. 1 & 2. As Grimes'
claims involved alleged due process violations that occurred
in Maryland, on May 30, 2017, the case was transferred
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406 to this district by United
States Magistrate Judge Mark L. Hornsby. ECF No. 4. It was
received in this district on May 31, 2017. ECF No. 5.
is confined at the Escambia County Jail in Pensacola,
Florida. Affording his pro se action a generous
construction, Grimes appears to complain that on an
unspecified date an extradition and arrest warrant was issued
by the Rockville, Maryland Police Department. The warrant was
based on an incident report authorized by Montgomery County,
Maryland Officer Roman naming Grimes a "prime
suspect" who made a bomb threat. ECF No. 1, pp. 1-2
& 4. Grimes seeks an order compelling defendants, the
majority of whom are employed in state courts in Maryland and
California, to take a lie detector test. Id., p. 5.
Montgomery County, Maryland cases involving Grimes relate to
traffic incidents occurring in 2016. The docket also reflects
that on February 26, 2017, a warrant was issued for Grimes on
counts of arson/threat and making a false statement with
regard to a destructive device. See State v. Grimes,
Case No. 5D00368618 (District Court for Montgomery County),
Further, examination of the Public Access to Court Electronic
Records ("PACER") reveals that Grimes has filed
hundreds of cases in the federal courts.
Grimes v. Haney, et al, Civil Action No.
JSW(PR)-15-436 (N.D. Cal.), United States District Court
Judge Jeffrey S. White of the Northern District of California
noted that "[o]n May 18, 2000, this Court informed
[Grimes] that under the 'three-strikes' provisions of
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) he generally is ineligible to
proceed in forma pauperis in federal court with
civil actions filed while he is incarcerated." (citing
Grimes v. Oakland Police Dep 't, Civil Action
No. CW-00-1100 (N.D. Cal.)). Judge White further observed
that "in 2003 alone [Grimes'] failure to pay the
full filing fee and to state cognizable claims for relief had
resulted in the dismissal of approximately thirty-six actions
under § 1915(g)." Grimes v. Haney, et al,
Civil Action No. JSW(PR)-15-436. at ECF No. 4. Similarly, in
2007, United States District Court Judge Claudia Wilken of
the Northern District of California observed that "[t]he
Court had routinely granted [Grimes]leave to amend to pay the
full filing fee and to state cognizable claims for relief but
he has habitually failed to do so. For example, in 2003 alone
Plaintiffs failure to comply resulted in the dismissal of
approximately thirty-six actions under § 1915(g)."
See Grimes v. Wan, et al, . Civil Action No. CW
(PR)-07-1726 (N.D. Cal.). In the Western District of
Louisiana, the District Court noted that Grimes has
"filed more than 350 complaints and appeals [, and]
[t]hree or more of them have been dismissed as
frivolous." See Grimes v. Ms. Lewis, et al.,
Civil Action No. EEF-MLH-12-3159 (W.D. La.). The court takes
judicial notice of these relevant and indisputable filings.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), a prisoner is prohibited from
filing a civil action 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. § 1915(g).
Given Grimes' filing history in federal court, he is
barred under § 1915(g) from filing prisoner complaints
in forma pauperis unless he can aver that he is under
imminent danger of serious physical injury. The instant
complaint is rambling and incoherent, and Grimes does not
allege that he is under imminent danger of serious physical
injury. He is forewarned that should he attempt to file
future civil rights actions in this court, they must be
accompanied by the civil filing fee. Additionally, any
complaint filed with an indigency application must establish
that Grimes is in imminent danger of serious physical harm.
Grimes' motion to proceed in forma pauperis will be
denied and his complaint will be dismissed without prejudice
by separate Order.
 The court has examined the court
docket for Montgomery County, Maryland, which reflects Grimes
was cited for several traffic violations, including the
failure to display his license to uniform police on demand,
driving without a required license and authorization, driving
on a revoked out-of-state license, driving while license is
suspended, driving on a suspended out-of-state license,
failure to attach vehicle registration plates at front and
rear, failure to display registration card upon demand by
police, and driving without current registration plates and
validation tabs. State v. Grimes, Citation Nos.
16PODHH, 16QODHH, 16RODHH, 16SODHH, ...