MILES (GORDAN) DAVIS, Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff Faison, an inmate proceeding pro se, commenced this action on January 29, 2004 by filing a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (doc. 1). He also has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (doc. 8). Plaintiff Faison did not submit any money for the filing fee at the time he submitted the complaint. Plaintiff Faison claims the defendants violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights when Defendant Inmate Guerra stole poetry and songs plaintiff had written, and the remaining defendants allowed them to be published and profited from the wrongdoing. Plaintiff further contends Inmate Guerra fraudulently used Plaintiff Faison's credit card number. As relief, Plaintiff Faison requests damages in an unspecified amount.
A prisoner may not bring a civil action in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 "if the prisoner 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) (2002). Plaintiff Faison is well aware of this section, because actions he filed in the Middle and Southern districts have been dismissed pursuant to § 1915(g). See, e.g., Case Numbers 3:03cv135-J-20HTS (Middle District case) and 1:00cv530 (Southern District case).
The Court takes judicial notice of the following action brought by Plaintiff Faison in this Court which was dismissed as frivolous: Case Number 4:02cv157/WS. Additionally, Plaintiff Faison's appeal in that case was dismissed as frivolous on December 23, 2002. Moreover, the Court takes judicial notice of the following prisoner actions filed by Plaintiff Faison in the Middle District of Florida which were dismissed because he lied under penalty of perjury about the existence of prior lawsuits: Case Numbers 99-59-Civ-J-20C; 99-1085-Civ-J-20A; 99-1114-Civ-J-21B; 3:00cv148-J-20A; and 3:02cv748-J-25TEM. The Eleventh Circuit has recognized that a dismissal for lying under penalty of perjury about prior lawsuits "is precisely the type of strike that Congress envisioned when drafting section 1915(g)." Rivera v. Allin, 144 F.3d 719, 731 (11th Cir. 1998).
By the time Plaintiff Faison brought the instant action, he was aware that he had three strikes and could not proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff Faison's allegations in the instant complaint do not entitle him to avoid the bar of § 1915(g), as they do not suggest he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. Because he did not pay the filing fee at the time he submitted this civil rights action, and because it plainly appears that Plaintiff Faison is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis, he must be dismissed from this case under § 1915(g). Leave should not be provided so that he can pay the fee; rather, dismissal is required if a "three striker" does not pay the filing fee at the time he submits the complaint. Dupree v. Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234 (11th Cir. 2002).
Plaintiff Faison asserts there are three named plaintiffs in this action, and he purports to file the complaint on behalf of Linda Collier and Betty Wright, both non-prisoners. However, it is clear that Plaintiff Faison is not authorized to file this complaint on their behalf. See Gonzales v. Wyatt, 157 F.3d 1016, 1021 (5th Cir. 1998) ("where [a] document is tendered and signed by a nonlawyer on behalf of another, then there comes into play the underlying principle itself, namely that in federal court a party can represent himself or be represented by an attorney, but cannot be represented by a nonlawyer") (citing Eagle Associates v. Bank of Montreal, 926 F.2d 1305, 1308-09) (2nd Cir. 1991)). Ms. Collier and Ms. Wright did not sign the complaint, nor did either of them submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis or the filing fee. The Court will not recognize Plaintiff Faison's attempt to file this complaint on behalf of these individuals. Further, it is clear that Ms. Collier and Ms. Wright would not be adequately represented by an inmate class. Finally, copies of this court's order (doc. 4) requiring plaintiffs to file a notice of whether they wished to proceed jointly in this action or separately in individual actions were mailed to Ms. Collier and Ms. Wright at the addresses provided by Plaintiff Faison; however, they were returned as undeliverable. ( See Docs. 5 6).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
Plaintiff Faison's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (doc. 8) is DENIED.
And it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:
1. That this case be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
2. That all other pending motions be DENIED AS MOOT.
3. That the clerk be directed to close the file.
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
Any objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within ten days after being served a copy thereof. A copy of objections shall be served upon all other parties. Failure to object may limit the scope of appellate review of factual findings. See 28 U.S.C. § 636; United States v. Roberts, 858 F.2d 698, 701 (11th Cir. 1988).