Alston v. Federal Bureau of Investigation
747 F. Supp. 2d 28
D.D.C.2010Background
- Plaintiff Pressley B. Alston, pro se and incarcerated, filed a FOIA action against the FBI.
- Court granted leave to proceed IFP on August 20, 2009.
- Defendant moved to vacate the IFP order under the Prison Litigation Reform Act three-strikes rule.
- Court must determine whether Alston has three or more prior US district court dismissals on grounds of frivolousness or failure to state a claim.
- Prior strikes identified: Alston I (2002) - dismissed for failure to state a claim; Alston II (2002) - dismissed for failure to state a claim; Alston III (2003) - Heck/Hell-based dismissal; Heck-based dismissal constitutes a strike.
- Alston does not allege imminent danger; thus the imminent danger exception does not apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Alston has three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). | Alston maintains not applicable or not properly counted. | Alston has three qualifying prior dismissals. | Yes, Alston has three strikes under § 1915(g). |
| Whether the imminent danger exception applies to excuse IFP status. | Not applicable or alleged imminent danger related to FOIA claim. | Imminent danger not demonstrated under the record. | Not applicable; exception does not apply. |
| Whether the court should vacate the August 20, 2009 IFP order. | Plaintiff opposes vacatur or seeks continued IFP status. | Three strikes require vacating IFP status and requiring filing fee. | The court grants the defendant's motion to vacate the IFP order; filing fee required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Thompson v. Drug Enforcement Admin., 492 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (three strikes analysis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g))
- Mitchell v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 587 F.3d 415 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (imminent danger exception framework)
- Ibrahim v. District of Columbia, 463 F.3d 3 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (limits on consideration of records outside the filing date)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (Supreme Court 1994) (requires favorable state-court disposition to sue for damages)
- Hazel v. Reno, 20 F. Supp. 2d 21 (D.D.C. 1998) (dismissal barred by Heck counted as frivolous)