Buy This Entire Record For
Hale v. State
United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, Chattanooga
March 14, 2017
THOMAS D. HALE, a/k/a RHEA HALE, a/k/a THOMAS DANIEL EUGENE HALE, a/k/a /S/DANA THE SOLOLIST, a/k/a HALE LAW FIRM, Plaintiff,
STATE OF TENNESSEE, TENNESSEE CORR. ACAD., TREATMENT CORR. ACAD., PROFESSIONAL MGMT. ACAD., CAREER MGMT. PROGRAMMED ACAD., PRO-LIFE SOCIAL SKILLS PROGRAMING ACAD., MENTAL HEALTH PROGRAMMING FOR RESHAPING COGNIVELY FOR RECOGNITION, MELVIN TIRY, HENRY STEWARD, ROB HENRY, JERRY LESTER, JAMES MICHAEL HOLLAWAY, BRENDA F. JONES, DOUG COOK, BERT BOYD, DARREN L. SETTLES, DERRICK SCHOFIELD, CORNEAL UNIVERSITY out of Dyer County, Tennessee, and Mississippi, Alabama and Arkansas, BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY CHAPTER and CHARTER in Western Parts of the Northern Hemisphere for Tennessee and Idaho, HALE & HALE LAW FIRM, HALE & HALE & MCINTURFF LAW FIRM, HALE & LYLES S. RUSSELL II LAW FIRM, WEST TENNESSEE STATE PENITENTIARY SITE 2, of Lake County, Tennessee, PENAL FARM of Lauderdale/Ripley County, Tennessee, and REG'L COMPLEX, of Tiptonville, Tennessee, Defendants.
K. Lee Magistrate Judge.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
R. MCDONOUGH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Court has before it a pro se state prisoner's civil
rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an
application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Docs. 1,
5.) Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996
(“PLRA”), codified in scattered sections of
Titles 11, 18, 28, and 42 of the United States Code, a
prisoner cannot bring a new civil action or appeal a judgment
in a civil action in forma pauperis if he has, three
or more times in the past, while incarcerated, brought a
civil action or appeal in federal court that was dismissed
because it was frivolous, was malicious, or failed to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(g). The only exception is if the prisoner is in
“imminent danger of serious physical injury.”
See id. § 1915(g).
incarcerated, Plaintiff has had at least three prior civil
rights actions dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state
a claim in district courts in Tennessee. See Hale v.
Long, No. 1:06-cv-1109 (W.D. Tenn. June 26, 2007) (order
dismissing case for failure to state a claim); Hale v.
Long, No. 1:95-cv-0111 (M.D. Tenn. May 2, 1996) (order
dismissing case as frivolous); Hale v. Williams, No.
1:94-cv-0145 (M.D. Tenn. Sept. 20, 1994) (order dismissing
case as frivolous); Hale v. Rhea, No. 3:94-cv-0812
(M.D. Tenn. Sept. 19, 1994) (order dismissing case as
frivolous); Hale v. Boyd, No. 1:94-cv-0141 (M.D.
Tenn. Sept. 14, 1994) (order dismissing case as frivolous);
see also Hale v. Cook, No. 1:16-cv-106 (E.D. Tenn.
May 2, 2016) (order listing Plaintiff's § 1915(g)
cases, denying him in forma pauperis status, and
directing him to pay the full filing fee); Hale v.
Steele, No. 3:12-cv-0476 (M.D. Tenn. May 18, 2012)
(same); Hale v. NWCX, No. 1:11-cv-1083 (W.D. Tenn.
Dec. 28, 2011) (same).
Plaintiff's complaint is practically indecipherable, to
the extent possible, the Court has reviewed it. As an example
of the nearly impenetrable prose contained in Plaintiff's
handwritten complaint, the factual basis of his claims for
relief reads as follows:
Comes now, Hale, Thomas D.; 00130892 filing and filed this
motion on 7/15/2016 for a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 licensed do
[sic] to duress and contributory negligence by laches
w/failure to consideration with assumption of risk along with
a RFRA claim licensed also and RLUIPA claim licensed and
deliberately indifferened [sic] by the defendants to teach a
lesson on Polictical [sic] sciences w/discrimination for this
race of Reformatory by the Uniform Administrative Procedure
Act of 2012/2014 revised from 2012 and the change of venue is
not lack of personal jurisdiction of knowledge as in state
theirin [sic]. Foreignors [sic] I am to these defendants
depriving me also with delay in their individual, official,
representative, and professional culpability capacities
petitioning this contract for the underlined.
(Doc. 1, at 2.) Plaintiff states in the preprinted form
complaint that he is in imminent danger and lacks “bare
necessities as they pursue [his] death conspiring only to
prove a point as if [he is] a lab rat and in a maze trying to
get out . . . .” (Doc. 1-3, at 1, 4.) Plaintiff seeks
damages and release from the “special housing
unit/mental health involuntarily” or release on parole.
(Id. at 6.)
none of these outlandish contentions possibly could qualify
for § 1915(g)'s “serious physical
injury” exception. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 5) is
DENIED. In order to file this action, Plaintiff must pay the
entire $400.00 filing fee within thirty days from the date on
Plaintiff fails timely to pay the filing fee, this case will
be DISMISSED, and he will be assessed the full filing fee.
See In re Alea, 286 F.3d 378, 381 (6th Cir. 2002)
(noting that a prisoner's obligation to the filing fee
arises when the complaint is delivered to the district court
clerk); id. (explaining that “[t]he subsequent
dismissal of the action under § 1915(g) for failure to
pay that fee does not negate or nullify the litigant's
continuing obligation to pay the fee in full”).
Plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint (Doc. 6) is
DENIED as premature.
 Defendants are identified in
Plaintiff's handwritten complaint and in a preprinted
form complaint, which, apparently, was supplied to him by the
district court in the Western District of Kentucky. (Docs. 1;
1-3.) The case was filed originally in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Kentucky and