ATMORE v. MINCEY et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
WILLIE JAMES ATMORE, 	:
:
Plaintiff, 	:
VS. 	: 	NO. 5:25-cv-520-MTT-ALS
:
Judge DAVID L. MINCEY; 	:
Attorney MEGAN TUTTLE, 	:
:
Defendants. 	:
________________________________ 	:
ORDER
Pro se Plaintiff Willie James Atmore, a pretrial detainee currently confined at
Central State Hospital in Milledgeville, Georgia, filed an unsigned 42 U.S.C. § 1983
complaint (ECF No. 1) and moved to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2). 	The Court
issued a notice of deficiency, instructing Plaintiff to sign and return his complaint. 	When
Plaintiff failed to respond to the notice of deficiency, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show
cause why his complaint should not be dismissed for failure to comply and prosecute his
action. 	ECF No. 8. 	On February 9, 2026, the Court docketed Plaintiff’s signed
complaint. 	ECF No. 1 (noting that signed complaint docketed on February 9, 2026); ECF
No. 1-6 (copy of signed complaint).
Following review of Plaintiff’s signed complaint and his litigation history, the Court
finds that Plaintiff may not proceed in forma pauperis because he has three strikes under
the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) and has not alleged he is in imminent danger
of 	serious 	physical 	injury. 	Thus, 	Plaintiff’s 	action 	is 	DISMISSED 	WITHOUT
Case 5:25-cv-00520-MTT-ALS Document 13 Filed 02/23/26 Page 1 of 5

2
PREJUDICE.
ANALYSIS UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)
Federal law bars a prisoner from bringing a civil action in federal court in forma
pauperis
if [he] 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.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 	This is known as the “three strikes provision.”
Under § 1915(g), a prisoner incurs a “strike” any time he has a federal lawsuit or
appeal dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous or malicious or fails to state a claim.
See Medberry v. Butler, 185 F.3d 1189, 1192 (11th Cir. 1999). 	Once a prisoner incurs
three strikes, his ability to proceed in forma pauperis in federal court is greatly limited:
leave to proceed in forma pauperis may not be granted unless the prisoner is under
imminent danger of serious physical injury. 	Id. 	The Eleventh Circuit has upheld the
constitutionality of § 1915(g) because it does not violate an inmate’s right to access the
courts, the doctrine of separation of powers, an inmate’s right to due process of law, or an
inmate’s right to equal protection. 	Rivera v. Allin, 144 F.3d 719, 723 (11th Cir. 1998)
(citations omitted), abrogated on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007).
A review of court records on the Federal Judiciary’s Public Access to Court
Electronic Records (“PACER”) database reveals that Plaintiff has filed numerous federal
lawsuits while incarcerated and at least three of his § 1983 complaints were dismissed as
Case 5:25-cv-00520-MTT-ALS Document 13 Filed 02/23/26 Page 2 of 5

3
frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim. 	See Order Dismissing Compl., Atmore
v. Stembridge, No. 5:06-cv-326-WDO-CWH (M.D. Ga. Sept. 21, 2006), ECF No. 4 (order
dismissing complaint as frivolous and/or failure to state a claim); Atmore v. Stembridge,
No. 5:06-cv-325-WDO-CWH (M.D. Ga. Sept. 27, 2006), ECF No. 4 (order dismissing
complaint as frivolous); Atmore v. Bibb Cnty. Sheriff’s Dept., No. 5:06-cv-327-DF-CWH
(M.D. Ga. Oct. 31, 2006), ECF No. 10 (order dismissing complaint as frivolous).
Plaintiff is accordingly barred from prosecuting this action in forma pauperis unless
he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. 	28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 	To qualify for
this exception, a prisoner must allege specific facts that describe an “ongoing serious
physical injury,” or “a pattern of misconduct evidencing the likelihood of imminent serious
physical injury.” 	Sutton v. Dist. Att’y Off., 334 Fed. App’x 278, 279 (11th Cir. 2009) (per
curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted). 	Complaints of past injuries are not sufficient.
See Medberry, 185 F.3d at 1193. Vague and unsupported claims of possible dangers
likewise do not suffice. 	See White v. State of Colo., 157 F.3d 1226, 1231 (10th Cir. 1998).
The exception to § 1915(g) is to be applied only in “genuine emergencies,” when (1) “time
is pressing,” (2) the “threat or prison condition is real and proximate,” and (3) the “potential
consequence is serious physical injury.” Lewis v. Sullivan, 279 F.3d 526, 531 (7th Cir.
2002).
Plaintiff’s complaint is difficult to decipher. 	He names Bibb County Superior
Court Judge David Mincey and criminal defense attorney Megan Tuttle but states he has
“never met” either of them.” 	ECF No. 1-6 at 1. 	In fact, he seems to think they are “fake”
Case 5:25-cv-00520-MTT-ALS Document 13 Filed 02/23/26 Page 3 of 5

4
or “false.” 	Id. at 5. 	Plaintiff states that he is facing “false charges” (Id. at 3) and “[t]he
reason they have . . . [a] fake judge and false attorney is because they know [he] know[s]
how to beat the charges that are false because [he] beat false charges 5 times in 2000” (Id.
at 5). 	He indicates that unnamed individuals transferred him from the Bibb County Law
Enforcement Center to Central State Hospital so they could “drug [him] for court.” 	Id. at
5. 	These allegations do not show that Plaintiff faces an imminent danger of serious
physical injury.1
1 These allegations also show that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Thus, even if the Court allowed Plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis, his action would be dismissed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and/or 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 	First, Plaintiff has not linked any alleged
constitutional violation to either of the two named Defendants. 	That failure alone warrants dismissal.
“[S]ection 1983 requires proof of an affirmative causal connection between the actions taken by a particular
person under color of state law and the constitutional deprivation.” 	LaMarca v. Turner, 995 F.2d 1526,
1538 (11th Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). 	A district court properly dismisses claims where a prisoner fails
to state any allegations that connect the alleged constitutional violation with a defendant. 	Douglas v. Yates,
535 F.3d 1316, 1322 (11th Cir. 2008) (citations omitted) (affirming dismissal of claims against several
defendants when plaintiff failed to allege facts that connect those defendants with any claim). 	Second,
even if Plaintiff linked a constitutional violation to Judge David Mincey, Mincey is “entitled to absolute
judicial immunity from damages for those acts taken while [he is] acting in [his] judicial capacity unless
[he] acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.” 	Bolin v. Story, 225 F.3d 1234, 1239 (11th Cir. 2000)
(per curiam) (quotation marks and citations omitted). 	Judge Mincey would have been “acting in [his]
judicial capacity” if and when he oversaw Plaintiff’s criminal proceedings. 	Id. 	Additionally, the Superior
Court of Bibb County has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s criminal conviction. 	Hicks v. State, 494 S.E.2d 342,
343 (Ga. App. 1997) (citations omitted) (stating that superior courts in Georgia have “concurrent
jurisdiction over felony and misdemeanor offenses”). 	Plaintiff could not obtain injunctive relief against
Judge Mincey because 42 U.S.C. § 1983 prohibits injunctive relief against “a judicial officer for an act or
omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity . . . unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory
relief was unavailable.” 	As stated above, when presiding over Plaintiff’s criminal case, Judge Mincey was
acting in his judicial capacity and Plaintiff has not alleged, and it does not appear, that a declaratory decree
was violated or that declaratory relief is unavailable. 	Thus, injunctive relief against Judge Mincey is not
available. 	Third, Attorney Megan Tuttle is not liable under § 1983 because she is not a state actor.
Defense counsel, whether court appointed or privately retained, “does not act under color of state law when
performing a lawyer’s traditional functions as counsel to a defendant in a criminal proceeding.” 	Polk Cnty.
v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981). 	Thus, even if the Court allowed Plaintiff to proceed in forma
pauperis, it would dismiss his complaint pursuant to the preliminary review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A or
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
Case 5:25-cv-00520-MTT-ALS Document 13 Filed 02/23/26 Page 4 of 5

5
Because Plaintiff has three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and has not shown an
imminent danger of serious physical injury, it is ORDERED that his motion to proceed in
forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is DENIED, his complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice,
and all outstanding motions (ECF No. 10; ECF No. 11; ECF No. 12) are DENIED as
moot.2
SO ORDERED, this 23rd day of February, 2026.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell______________
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 In Dupree v. Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234 (11th Cir. 2002), the Eleventh Circuit held that a prisoner cannot
simply pay the filing fee after being denied in forma pauperis status, he must pay the filing fee at the time
he initiates the suit. Thus, the proper procedure when denying in forma pauperis status is to dismiss the
complaint without prejudice, allowing the Plaintiff to refile upon payment of the full $405.00 filing fee.
Case 5:25-cv-00520-MTT-ALS Document 13 Filed 02/23/26 Page 5 of 5