James v. Miokovic et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
PAUL R. JAMES, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
OFFICER MIOKOVIC, NURICE
MERALICE, AND SERGEANT
OLSION,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:26-cv-00356-SLG
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO PROCEED WITHOUT
PREPAYING THE $405 FILING FEE
On October 7, 2026, self-represented prisoner Paul R. James, Jr. (Plaintiff)
filed a civil complaint, a handwritten motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and a
Financial 	Affidavit 	on 	Form 	CJA 	23.1 	Plaintiff 	acknowledges 	that 	he 	has
accumulated at least three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and he invokes the
imminent danger exception that would allow him to proceed on his claims without
prepaying the full filing fee.2 However, upon review, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to
1 Dockets 1-3. Note: The CJA 23 Financial Affidavit Form is not an acceptable substitute
for an application to waive the filing fee in a civil case. Prisoner litigants requesting to
waive prepayment of the filing fee must file the completed and signed correct
application form (District of Alaska Form PS10) and include with that application a
statement from their prison trust account for the past six months. Local Civil Rule
3.1(c)(3).
2 Docket 1 at 6. See also James v. Seairs, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-00012-SLG, Docket
4 at 16 (notifying Plaintiff he has received three strikes, specifically in Case Nos. 3:22-
Case 3:26-cv-00356-SLG Document 4 Filed 10/09/26 Page 1 of 8

Case No. 3:26-cv-00356-SLG, James v. Miokovic, et al.
Order Denying Plaintiff’s Request to Proceed Without Prepaying the $405 Filing Fee
Page 2 of 8
demonstrate that he met the imminent danger exception when he filed this action
because the asserted imminent danger is not fairly traceable to the alleged
unlawful conduct by the Defendants named in this action and the relief requested
in the Complaint does not target the source of the alleged danger. Accordingly,
Plaintiff must pay the full $405 filing fee if he wishes to proceed with his claims in
this case.
I. 	The Three Strikes Rule
The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires that a self-represented prisoner
receive a “strike” when a case he has filed in federal court is dismissed “as frivolous
or malicious or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted[.]”3 If a
prisoner-plaintiff has accumulated three strikes, he is prohibited from bringing any
other civil rights cases in federal court without prepaying the full filing fee unless
he makes “plausible allegations” that, at the time he filed the complaint, he is under
imminent 	danger 	of 	serious 	physical 	injury.4 	Imminent 	danger 	requires 	an
allegation that a harm is “ready to take place” or “hanging threateningly over one's
head.”5 	It cannot be triggered solely by complaints of past injury or generalized
fears of possible future harm.6 Vague, non-specific allegations are insufficient, and
cv-00-JMK, 3:22-cv-00269-JMK, and 3:25-cv-00012-SLG).
3 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
4 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
5 Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1056 (9th Cir. 2007) (cleaned up).
6 Id. at 1053 (“The exception's use of the present tense, combined with its concern only
with the initial act of ‘bring[ing]’ the lawsuit, indicates to us that the exception applies if
Case 3:26-cv-00356-SLG Document 4 Filed 10/09/26 Page 2 of 8

Case No. 3:26-cv-00356-SLG, James v. Miokovic, et al.
Order Denying Plaintiff’s Request to Proceed Without Prepaying the $405 Filing Fee
Page 3 of 8
assertions of imminent danger may be rejected as overly speculative, fanciful, or
“conclusory or ridiculous.”7
In addition, “the PLRA requires a nexus between the alleged imminent
danger and the violations of law alleged in the prisoner's complaint.”8 In deciding
whether such a nexus exists, federal courts consider: “(1) whether the imminent
danger 	of serious 	physical 	injury that 	a three-strikes litigant alleges is fairly
traceable to 	unlawful 	conduct 	asserted 	in 	the 	complaint, 	and 	(2) 	whether 	a
favorable judicial outcome would redress that injury.”9 A prisoner-plaintiff seeking
to 	invoke 	the imminent danger exception must meet 	both 	requirements 	of 	the
nexus test to proceed.
II. 	Summary of Plaintiff’s Complaint
Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that the named Defendants—Officer Miokovic,
Nurice Meralice, and Sargent Olsion—engaged in or facilitated a pattern of sexual
harassment and proposed or accepted payment arrangements to permit sexual
activity with Plaintiff, with allegations spanning from approximately January 2026
to September 8, 2026.10
the danger existed at the time the prisoner filed the complaint.”).
7 Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1057, fn. 11.
8 Ray v. Lara, 31 F.4th 692, 701 (9th Cir. 2022).
9 Id. at 700 (emphasis in original).
10 Docket 1 at 2–5.
Case 3:26-cv-00356-SLG Document 4 Filed 10/09/26 Page 3 of 8

Case No. 3:26-cv-00356-SLG, James v. Miokovic, et al.
Order Denying Plaintiff’s Request to Proceed Without Prepaying the $405 Filing Fee
Page 4 of 8
Specifically, 	Plaintiff 	alleges 	that 	from 	approximately 	January 	2026 	to
September 2026, Officer Miokovic asserted that she had or desired a romantic or
sexual relationship with Plaintiff, and disclosed Plaintiff’s statements to her to
others in the facility. Plaintiff further alleges that, in or around June 2026, Officer
Miokovic proposed paying a supervisor $500,000 to facilitate her sexual activity
with Plaintiff.11
Plaintiff alleges that Nurice Meralice engaged in ongoing sexual harassment
of Plaintiff beginning in January 2026. The alleged conduct includes asking officers
to permit her to have sexual contact with Plaintiff in the infirmary and offering bribes
for sex using Plaintiff’s funds.12 Plaintiff further alleges that, in June 2026, another
officer not named in the Complaint agreed to permit five minutes of sex under the
camera, after which Nurse Meralice requested more time for sex.13
Lastly, Plaintiff alleges that for approximately nine months in 2026, Sargent
Olsion permitted Officer Miokovic to claim a personal relationship with Plaintiff.
Plaintiff further alleges that from approximately June through September 2026,
Sargent Olsion participated in conversations with Officer Miokovic about payment
11 Docket 1 at 3.
12 Plaintiff claims that he possesses over $200 million dollars in settlement money that is
being held by Goose Creek by court order, and that he is unable to use those funds until
all of his legal actions are concluded or until he signs an agreement with Alaska courts.
Docket 2 at 1.
13 Docket 1 at 4.
Case 3:26-cv-00356-SLG Document 4 Filed 10/09/26 Page 4 of 8

Case No. 3:26-cv-00356-SLG, James v. Miokovic, et al.
Order Denying Plaintiff’s Request to Proceed Without Prepaying the $405 Filing Fee
Page 5 of 8
arrangements intended to facilitate sexual activity with Plaintiff.14 Plaintiff also
appears to claim that he has been put in segregation in retaliation for filing lawsuits
and grievances.15
Plaintiff 	asserts 	he 	filed 	multiple 	Level 	I 	grievances 	at 	Goose 	Creek.
Attached to the Complaint, Plaintiff included seven DOC memoranda, all dated
September 28, 2026, that state that Plaintiff’s grievances GC26-351, GC26-352,
GC26-365, GC26-366, GC26-367, GC26-368, and GC26-369 were logged and
converted to PREA case #26-086.16
III. 	Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that the imminent danger
exception applies
In the Complaint, Plaintiff checked “yes” in response to the question, “[a]re
you in imminent danger of serious physical injury.”17 However, Plaintiff’s Complaint
fails to meet either requirement of the nexus test that would allow him to invoke
the imminent danger exception.
Plaintiff’s allegations do not satisfy the traceability requirement. Plaintiff’s
imminent danger narrative asserts a risk of being killed by unidentified “officials,”
including an alleged plan to pepper spray him until it “causes poison,” without tying
those threats or planned actions to the specific alleged conduct pled against the
14 Docket 1 at 5.
15 Docket 1-1 at 1.
16 Docket 1 at 5; Docket 1-1 at 1–7.
17 Docket 1 at 7.
Case 3:26-cv-00356-SLG Document 4 Filed 10/09/26 Page 5 of 8

Case No. 3:26-cv-00356-SLG, James v. Miokovic, et al.
Order Denying Plaintiff’s Request to Proceed Without Prepaying the $405 Filing Fee
Page 6 of 8
three Defendants named in the Complaint.18
Plaintiff’s 	allegations 	of 	imminent 	harm 	likewise 	fail 	to 	establish
redressability. The nexus test requires that a favorable judicial outcome would
redress the alleged imminent danger of serious physical injury. Plaintiff seeks
$175,000 in damages, $250,000 in punitive damages, an order requiring that
Defendants be “summoned,” and a declaration that no Defendant remain unserved
and that Defendants be tried.19 He does not request injunctive or other relief
directed at preventing the alleged life-threatening harm described in his imminent
danger narrative; nor does he explain how the monetary and other relief he seeks
from the named Defendants would abate that danger. Plaintiff therefore has not
established that a favorable outcome on the claims asserted in the Complaint
would redress the alleged imminent injury.
Because Plaintiff has not satisfied either requirement of the nexus test,
Plaintiff’s Complaint does not plausibly allege that he was in “imminent danger of
serious physical injury” at the time he filed his Complaint. “The right to proceed in
forma pauperis is not an unqualified one. [...] It is a privilege, rather than a
right.”20 For the reasons explained above, Plaintiff’s motion to proceed without
prepaying the filing fee at Docket 2 is DENIED. If Plaintiff wishes to proceed
18 Docket 1 at 7.
19 Docket 1 at 8.
20 Jefferson v. United States, 277 F.2d 723, 725 (9th Cir. 1960) (citations omitted).
Case 3:26-cv-00356-SLG Document 4 Filed 10/09/26 Page 6 of 8

Case No. 3:26-cv-00356-SLG, James v. Miokovic, et al.
Order Denying Plaintiff’s Request to Proceed Without Prepaying the $405 Filing Fee
Page 7 of 8
with this case, he must pay the full $405.00 filing fee within 60 days of the date
of this order. The Court will then screen the operative complaint in accordance
with 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A to determine whether it is subject to
dismissal or whether there are any plausible claims that may proceed to the next
stage of litigation. 	Regardless of that outcome, the $405.00 filing fee will not be
refunded to Plaintiff. Alternatively, instead of paying the full filing fee at this time,
Plaintiff may file a notice of voluntary dismissal in which he elects to close this
case.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. 	Plaintiff’s motion to proceed without prepaying the filing fee at Docket
2 is DENIED because Plaintiff has accumulated at least three strikes, and he has
not demonstrated that he qualifies for the imminent danger exception to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915’s three-strikes provision that would allow him to proceed on his claims
without prepaying the full $405.00 filing fee.
2. 	Plaintiff is accorded 60 days from the date of this order to either (1)
pay the $350 filing fee and $55 administrative fee, a total of $405, or (2) file a
Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, in which Plaintiff elects to close and end this case.
3. 	If Plaintiff fails to pay the full $405 filing fee within 60 days of the
date of this order, this case will be dismissed without further notice to Plaintiff.
4. 	The 	Clerk 	is 	directed 	to 	send 	form 	PS09, 	Notice 	of 	Voluntary
Dismissal, to Plaintiff with this order.
Case 3:26-cv-00356-SLG Document 4 Filed 10/09/26 Page 7 of 8

Case No. 3:26-cv-00356-SLG, James v. Miokovic, et al.
Order Denying Plaintiff’s Request to Proceed Without Prepaying the $405 Filing Fee
Page 8 of 8
DATED this 9th day of October, 2026, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
SHARON L. GLEASON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:26-cv-00356-SLG Document 4 Filed 10/09/26 Page 8 of 8