Changeflow GovPing Courts & Legal Hunter Alexander v. John Doe, Jane Doe - IFP De...
Routine Enforcement Amended Final

Hunter Alexander v. John Doe, Jane Doe - IFP Denied, Case Dismissed

Favicon for www.courtlistener.com US District Court SDIN Docket Feed
Filed
Detected
Email

Summary

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana denied prisoner Hunter Alexander's motion to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), finding he had accumulated at least seven prior case dismissals as frivolous or for failure to state a claim. The court dismissed the case with prejudice as a sanction under Sloan v. Lesza and Seventh Circuit precedent, ordered entry of final judgment, and directed that the $405.00 filing fee is owed. Alexander had been previously warned of his struck-out status but failed to disclose it in this filing.

“Mr. Alexander's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, dkt. [2], is denied under § 1915(g). Due to Mr. Alexander's strikes, he may not proceed in forma pauperis and instead owes the $405.00 filing fee.”

SDIN , verbatim from source
Published by SDIN on courtlistener.com . Detected, standardized, and enriched by GovPing. Review our methodology and editorial standards .

About this source

GovPing monitors US District Court SDIN Docket Feed for new courts & legal regulatory changes. Every update since tracking began is archived, classified, and available as free RSS or email alerts — 3 changes logged to date.

What changed

The court applied the Prison Litigation Reform Act's 'three strikes' provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), to deny Alexander's motion to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. Because he had at least seven prior cases dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim, and had been previously warned of his struck-out status, the court dismissed the case with prejudice as a sanction under Seventh Circuit precedent. The ruling reinforces that repeat frivolous filers must disclose their strike history and pay all fees upfront, or risk dismissal.\n\nFor courts and legal professionals handling prisoner civil actions, this case demonstrates consistent application of the three-strikes rule where the plaintiff fails to acknowledge prior dismissals and does not allege imminent danger of serious physical injury.

Archived snapshot

Apr 24, 2026

GovPing captured this document from the original source. If the source has since changed or been removed, this is the text as it existed at that time.

Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document The text of this document was obtained by analyzing a scanned document and may have typos.

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project
, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

April 17, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

HUNTER ALEXANDER v. JOHN DOE, JANE DOE

District Court, S.D. Indiana

Trial Court Document

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

HUNTER ALEXANDER, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 1:26-cv-00722-JPH-MKK
)
JOHN DOE, )
JANE DOE, )
)
Defendants. )

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION AND DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL
JUDGMENT

Incarcerated plaintiff Hunter Alexander filed a civil complaint about the
United States postal system. Dkt. 1. He asks for leave to proceed without
prepaying the filing fee. Dkt. 2.
A prisoner may not bring a civil action proceeding 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).
Moreover, in this Circuit, litigants who have been notified of their three
strikes "must disclose to the court the fact that they have 'struck out' and . . .
pay all fees upfront, or risk dismissal of their case as a sanction for misconduct."
Isby v. Brown, 856 F.3d 508, 519 (7th Cir. 2017). "An effort to bamboozle the
court by seeking permission to proceed in forma pauperis after a federal judge
has held that §1915(g) applies to a particular litigant will lead to immediate
termination of the suit." Sloan v. Lesza, 181 F.3d 857, 859 (7th Cir. 1999).
Mr. Alexander has had at least seven cases dismissed as being frivolous

and/or for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See
Alexander v. Does, 1:26-cv-00521-TWP-MG (S.D. Ind. Mar. 23, 2026); Alexander
v. Does, 1:26-cv-00523-MPB-MG (S.D. Ind. Mar. 30, 2026); Alexander v. Does, et
al., 1:26-cv-00525-JPH-MJD (S.D. Ind. Apr. 1, 2026); Alexander v. Does, et al.,
1:26-cv-00526-JRS-KMB (S.D. Ind. Apr. 8, 2026); Alexander v. Does, et al., 1:26-
cv-00528-JMS-KMB (S.D. Ind. Mar. 24, 2026); Alexander v. Does, et al., 1:26-cv-
00531-SEB-TAB (S.D. Ind. Mar. 25, 2026); and Alexander v. Does, et al., 1:26-
cv-00540-JRO-CSW (S.D. Ind. Mar. 24, 2026).

Mr. Alexander has also been warned that he has struck out under 28
U.S.C. § 1915 (g) and can no longer proceed in forma pauperis unless he alleges
that he "is under imminent danger of serious physical injury." See Alexander v.
John Does, 1:26-cv-00541-JRS-TAB, dkt. 8 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 26, 2026) (advising
Mr. Alexander of strikes and warning him that he cannot proceed in forma
pauperis in any case filed in this district after March 24, 2026, unless he falls
under the imminent danger exception).
In his motion to proceed in forma pauperis, Mr. Alexander states "A lot" in

the litigation history section, but he does not attempt to list his cases. Dkt. 2 at
3. Mr. Alexander does not acknowledge that he has struck out, nor does he allege
that he is under imminent danger. The complaint alleges that the U.S. Postal
Service permits employees to trespass property by delivering mail and that the
act of delivering mail harms the environment and spreads disease. Dkt. 1 at 3.
These frivolous allegations do not implicate the imminent danger exception.
Mr. Alexander's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, dkt. [2], is
denied under § 1915(g). Due to Mr. Alexander's strikes, he may not proceed in
forma pauperis and instead owes the $405.00 filing fee.
Mr. Alexander had notice of his strikes before moving to proceed in forma
pauperis in this action. See Alexander v. John Does, 1:26-cv-00545-SEB-KMB,
dkt. 9 (filing notice of appeal as to Court's March 31, 2026, order denying in
forma pauperis motion and warning of strikes) (S.D. Ind. Apr. 10, 2026). The case
is dismissed with prejudice as a sanction pursuant to Sloan. Mr. Alexander's
motion to appoint counsel, dkt. [3], is denied as moot.
The clerk is directed to enter final judgment.
SO ORDERED.

Date: 4/17/2026 ams Pat tavbor—
James Patrick Hanlon
United States District Judge
Southern District of Indiana
Distribution:
HUNTER ALEXANDER
201044
PENDLETON - CF
PENDLETON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Inmate Mail/Parcels
4490 West Reformatory Road
PENDLETON, IN 46064

Named provisions

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)

Citations

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) statute governing prisoner IFP denials and three-strikes rule

Get daily alerts for US District Court SDIN Docket Feed

Daily digest delivered to your inbox.

Free. Unsubscribe anytime.

About this page

What is GovPing?

Every important government, regulator, and court update from around the world. One place. Real-time. Free. Our mission

What's from the agency?

Source document text, dates, docket IDs, and authority are extracted directly from SDIN.

What's AI-generated?

The summary, classification, recommended actions, deadlines, and penalty information are AI-generated from the original text and may contain errors. Always verify against the source document.

Last updated

Classification

Agency
SDIN
Filed
April 17th, 2026
Instrument
Enforcement
Branch
Judicial
Legal weight
Binding
Stage
Final
Change scope
Minor
Document ID
Hunter Alexander v. John Doe, Jane Doe, No. 1:26-cv-00722-JPH-MKK (S.D. Ind. Apr. 17, 2026)
Docket
1:26-cv-00722

Who this affects

Applies to
Criminal defendants Legal professionals
Industry sector
9211 Government & Public Administration
Activity scope
Prisoner civil litigation In forma pauperis proceedings
Threshold
Three or more prior frivolous civil actions while incarcerated
Geographic scope
US-IN US-IN

Taxonomy

Primary area
Judicial Administration
Operational domain
Legal
Topics
Civil Rights Consumer Protection

Get alerts for this source

We'll email you when US District Court SDIN Docket Feed publishes new changes.

Free. Unsubscribe anytime.

You're subscribed!