317 F. Supp. 3d 702
W.D.N.Y.2018Background
- Plaintiff Carlos Abreu, a pro se prisoner with at least three prior qualifying dismissals under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), filed a § 1983 action alleging serious, untreated medical problems while incarcerated and was provisionally granted in forma pauperis (IFP) status under the imminent-danger exception.
- Defendants moved to revoke IFP, submitting Dr. David Karandy’s declaration, Plaintiff’s medical records, and disciplinary history to challenge the court’s preliminary finding that Abreu faced imminent danger when he filed the complaint.
- Medical evidence showed Abreu refused prescribed prophylactic tuberculosis medication and other care, had no signs or symptoms of active TB, had documented treatment or therapy for hand pain, and received creams and stool softeners for dermatologic and gastrointestinal complaints.
- Records indicated Abreu had been required to wear an "exposer suit" due to prior incidents and that his refusals of treatment did not place his life in imminent danger according to the medical declaration.
- Abreu opposed the motion but did not produce medical evidence contradicting defendants’ records and instead disputed his three-strike status and criticized defendants and other courts’ rulings.
- The court concluded defendants’ evidence rebutted the preliminary imminent-danger finding, revoked Abreu’s IFP status, and ordered payment of the $400 filing fee within 30 days or dismissal with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Abreu qualified for the § 1915(g) imminent-danger exception when he filed the complaint | Abreu alleged multiple untreated, serious medical conditions (TB, rectal bleeding, back pain, healing hand fracture) constituting imminent danger | Medical records and CMO declaration show no active TB or life-threatening condition, refusals of medication and treatment, and treatment provided for other complaints | Court held Abreu was not under imminent danger at filing and revoked IFP |
| Whether the court may consider evidence beyond the complaint when defendants challenge an earlier provisional imminent-danger finding | Argued court should limit inquiry to complaint per Chavis | Defendants sought to introduce medical records, declaration, and disciplinary history to rebut the preliminary finding | Court held it may consider evidence outside the complaint when defendants timely challenge the preliminary imminent-danger finding |
Key Cases Cited
- Chavis v. Chappius, 618 F.3d 162 (2d Cir.) (imminent-danger inquiry is a threshold, preliminary determination based on complaint plausibility)
- Stine v. U.S. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, [citation="465 F. App'x 790"] (10th Cir.) (after provisional IFP grant, defendants may mount a facial challenge with fuller factual development)
- Taylor v. Watkins, 623 F.3d 483 (7th Cir.) (district court must resolve conflicts when defendants contest allegations of imminent danger)
- Gibbs v. Roman, 116 F.3d 83 (3d Cir.) (if defendant challenges imminent danger, court must assess credibility to determine IFP eligibility)