Lightfoot v. Washington et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
PHILIP LIGHTFOOT,
Plaintiff, 	Case No. 2:25-cv-12681
Honorable Susan K. DeClercq
v. 	United States District Court
WASHINGTON, et al.,
Defendants.
/
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN
FORMA PAUPERIS (ECF NO. 2), DISMISSING THE AMENDED
COMPLAINT (ECF No. 5), DISMISSING THE CASE, AND DENYING
PERMISSION TO PROCEED IN FORMAL PAUPERIS ON APPEAL
On August 26, 2025, Philip Lightfoot, who is currently incarcerated at the
Cooper Street Correctional Facility in Jackson, Michigan, filed a complaint pro se
against four Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) employees. ECF No. 1.
He also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. On September
30, 2025, he filed an amended complaint, which is the operative complaint. ECF No.
5. In his amended complaint, Lightfoot claims that Defendants violated the First,
Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments by imposing a visitor restriction and by failing
to follow established policy when withdrawing money from his institutional account.
Case 2:25-cv-12681-SKD-EAS ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/27/25 Page 1 of 4

2
He seeks $9,000 in punitive damages, $9,000 in compensatory damages, and
restoration of funds withdrawn from his institutional account.
The Court may authorize commencement of an action without prepayment of
the filing fee and costs if a plaintiff demonstrates an inability to pay such fees. 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). However, this process is subject to the Prison Litigation
Reform Act’s (PLRA) three-strikes rule. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Under the three-
strikes rule, a prisoner may not proceed in forma pauperis when, on three or more
previous occasions, a federal court dismissed the incarcerated plaintiff’s action
because it was frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim for which relief may be
granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Accordingly, “[c]ourts may sua sponte apply the three-
strikes rule ... and take judicial notice of a plaintiff’s prior dismissals.” White v.
Sturm, 737 F. Supp.3d 576, 578 (E.D. Mich. 2024) (citations omitted). In a limited
exception, a prisoner plaintiff’s claim can overcome the three-strike rule if the
prisoner plaintiff shows they are “under imminent danger of serious physical injury.”
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
The PLRA’s three-strikes rule applies to Lightfoot because he has had at least
three civil rights complaints dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state
a claim. See, e.g., Lightfoot v. Scutt, et al., No. 2:12-CV-11097 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 17,
2013); Lightfoot v. MDOC Parole Bd., et al., No. 2:11-CV-11183, 2011 WL
1496663 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 19, 2011); Lightfoot v. Scutt, et al., No. 2:11-CV-14968
Case 2:25-cv-12681-SKD-EAS ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/27/25 Page 2 of 4

3
(E.D. Mich. Dec. 20, 2011). Lightfoot, therefore, may not proceed without prepaying
fees and costs unless he satisfies the imminent danger exception to the three-strikes
rule.
Here, he fails to do so because his complaint does not allege imminent danger
of 	serious 	physical 	injury 	whatsoever, 	even 	liberally 	construed 	for 	pro 	se
complainants. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) (holding that the
pleadings are liberally construed but must still contain a supportive, factual basis for
the claims). Instead, his claims that Defendants unfairly placed him on restricted
visitor status and improperly withdrew funds from his prison account do not raise a
possibility of physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Because there is no basis to
conclude that Lightfoot qualifies for the imminent danger exception, the Court will
deny his motion to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs and dismiss the
case.
Accordingly, 	the 	Court 	DENIES 	the 	application 	to 	proceed 	without
prepayment of fees or cost, ECF No. 2, DISMISSES the amended complaint, ECF
No. 5, and DISMISSES the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). This dismissal is
without prejudice to the filing of a new complaint with full payment of the filing fee
($350.00) and the administrative fee ($55.00).
Further, it is ORDERED that Lightfoot is denied permission to proceed in
forma pauperis on appeal because, under the three-strikes provision of 28 U.S.C.
Case 2:25-cv-12681-SKD-EAS ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/27/25 Page 3 of 4

4
§ 1915(g) such that an appeal from this order would be frivolous and cannot be taken
in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
This is a final order and closes the above-captioned case.
/s/Susan K. DeClercq
SUSAN K. DeCLERCQ
United States District Judge
Dated: October 27, 2025
Case 2:25-cv-12681-SKD-EAS ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/27/25 Page 4 of 4