ORDER
JAMES D. WHITTEMORE, District Judge.
This pro se prisoner civil rights action is before the Court sua sponte to reconsider the order granting leave to proceed informa pauperis. See Doc. No. 7. Because Plaintiff had more than three civil cases or appeals dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted prior to filing this case, it is subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The order granting leave to proceed informa pauperis is therefore VACATED, and this case is DISMISSED.
On May 20, 2014, Plaintiff was ordered to show cause why this case should not be dismissed because he had three prior federal civil rights actions or appeals dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim prior to filing this case. Plaintiff was further directed to show cause why the case should not be dismissed because he failed to list all of his prior federal civil cases in his second amended complaint, despite signing the second amended complaint under penalty of perjury. (Doc. No. 95.)
In response to the Order, Plaintiff maintains that he should be allowed to proceed informa pauperis, despite the fact that he has had more than three prior federal civil rights actions or appeals dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim, because some of those cases were dismissed prior to enactment of the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA") (Doc. No. 96 at 2-3.) Plaintiff is mistaken. The three strikes rule in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) applies to pre-PLRA cases. Rivera v. Allin, 144 F.3d 719, 726 (11th Cir. 1998), abrogated on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007).
Under the PLRA, "prisoners are permitted to file only three meritless suits in the in forma pauperis status." Dollar v. Coweta County Sheriff Office, 510 F. App'x 897, 899 (11th Cir. 2013) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)). Specifically, the "three strikes" provision in 28 U.S.C. 1915(g) states:
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.
As explained by the Eleventh Circuit, "[t]he purpose of the PLRA is to curtail abusive prisoner litigation. . . . `After the third meritless suit, the prisoner must pay the fall filing fee at the time he initiates suit.'" Dupree v. Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234, 1236 (11th Cir. 2002) (emphasis added) (quoting Vanderberg v. Donaldson, 259 F.3d 1321, 1324 (11th Cir. 2001)). Consequently, courts have a responsibility to dismiss cases, evensua sponte, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See, e.g., Casey v. Scott, 493 F. App'x 1000, 1001 (11th Cir. 2012) (affirming district court's sua sponte dismissal of case under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and noting "[t]he district court must search the record of the plaintiffs federal cases to determine if they were dismissed for the relevant reasons."); Sutton v. District Attorney's Office, of Gwinnett Superior Court, Georgia, 334 Fed.Appx. 278, 278 (11th Cir. 2009)(affirming sua sponte dismissal under§ 1915(g); Wright v. Polk County, No. 13-13772, 2014 WL 715774, at *1-2 (11th Cir. Feb. 26, 2014).
A review of Plaintiffs federal cases filed prior to the filing of this case establishes that he has had at least ten cases or appeals dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim. See, e.g., Anderson v. Lappin, No. 06-12278-1 (11th Cir. Aug. 24, 2006) (order dismissing appeal as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i));1 Anderson v. Burgos, No. 02-14860-C (11th Cir. Jan. 7, 2003) (order dismissing appeal as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i));2 Anderson v. Nottingham, No. 1:96-cv-262-DBS (D. Colo. Mar. 7, 1996), Dkt. # 5 (noting that complaint is dismissed as legally frivolous); Anderson v. Elliot, No. 3:93-cv-3183-RDR (D. Kan. May 10, 1993), Dkt. # 7 (dismissing complaint pursuant to Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) because "the defense to plaintiffs claims are complete and obvious from the pleading"); Anderson v. Wilson, No. 5:91-cv-62-BR (E.D.N.C. Feb. 14, 1991 ), Dkt. # 4 (noting that action is dismissed as frivolous); see also Anderson v. Cortez, No. 1:97-cv-3005-MHS (N.D. Ga. Apr. 28, 1998), Dkt. # 7 (dismissing complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)); Anderson v. Boswell, 3:95-cv-644-MHT-CSC(M.D. Ala. July 7, 1995), Dkt. # 11 (noting that the case is dismissed without prejudice prior to service pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)); Anderson v. Clark, No. 3:95-cv-3195-RDR (D. Kan. May 8, 1995), Dkt. # 4 (dismissing case under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) because it was clear from the face of the complaint that plaintiffs claims were time barred); Anderson v. Miles, No. 4:95-cv-62-HL (M.D. Ga. Aug. 17, 1995), Dkt. # 5 (dismissing civil rights complaint prior to service); Anderson v. Elliot, No. 4:94-cv-57-DF (M.D. Ga. June 20, 1994), Dkt. # 3 (dismissing complaint against a judge prior to service).3
The Civil Rights Complaint Form on which Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint expressly warned that "FAILURE TO DISCLOSE ALL PRIOR CIVIL CASES MAY RESULT IN THE DISMISSAL OF THIS CASE." (Dkt. 18, p. 5, ¶ IV). Notwithstanding, the only cases or appeals Plaintiff ostensibly listed in section IV(D), which required him to list any prior federal actions "dismissed as frivolous, malicious, failing to state a claim, or prior to service," were Anderson v. Lappin, No. 06-12278-I (11th Cir. Aug. 24, 2006) and Anderson v. Nottingham, No. 1:96-cv-262-DBS (D. Colo. Mar. 7, 1996).4 See Dkt. # 18 at 7-8.5
As detailed supra, prior to filing this case, Plaintiff had more than three federal civil actions or appeals dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. And the allegations in the Second Amended Complaint do not support the imminent danger of serious physical injury exception to the three strikes provision in§ 1915(g). Accordingly, Plaintiff was mistakenly allowed to proceed informa pauperis. His failure to list his prior federal cases or appeals which were dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim contributed to the delay in determining that this case is subject to the three strikes provision of§ 1915(g).6 And to date, Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee.7 Accordingly,
1. The Order granting Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 7) is VACATED. Plaintiff is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
2. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
3. All pending motions are denied as moot. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case.
DONE AND ORDERED.
