Alton Brown v. Wexford Health Sources Inc
705 F. App'x 63
3rd Cir.2017Background
- Alton D. Brown, an inmate at SCI‑Greene, filed two complaints in the W.D. Pa. seeking IFP status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, relating to alleged inadequate medical care for prostate cancer and Hepatitis C.
- Brown has at least three prior § 1915(g) strikes, so he could proceed IFP only by showing he was "under imminent danger of serious physical injury" when he filed.
- In each case the Magistrate Judge concluded Brown failed to show imminent danger (citing refusals of offered treatment), and the District Court adopted those recommendations and denied IFP.
- For the prostate claim Brown alleged defendants required an invasive biopsy and withheld medical records/information necessary for informed consent; he alleged rising PSA levels, pain, weight loss, bleeding, and other worsening signs.
- For the Hepatitis C claim Brown alleged prior refusal of interferon for side effects, later sought treatment but was denied for non‑medical reasons; he alleged severe symptoms, ~40 lb weight loss, and ongoing worsening.
- The Third Circuit concluded the District Court abused its discretion in both denials, finding Brown’s allegations, if accepted at the IFP threshold, sufficiently alleged imminent danger of serious physical injury, and vacated and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Brown proved imminent danger to proceed IFP for prostate claim | Brown: denial of medical records/info prevented informed consent; serious/worsening prostate disease (rising PSA, pain, bleeding) creates imminent danger | Defendants: Brown repeatedly refused offered treatment; his refusal, not defendants, caused risk | Held: Vacated. Allegations that information was withheld and disease was worsening sufficiently alleged imminent danger at filing; IFP should not have been denied |
| Whether Brown proved imminent danger to proceed IFP for Hepatitis C claim | Brown: defendants denied comprehensive diagnosis/treatment for non‑medical reasons; symptoms severe (pain, weight loss) and untreated Hep C creates imminent danger | Defendants: prior similar complaints and treatment refusals undermine claim of imminent danger | Held: Vacated. Allegations of untreated Hepatitis C with significant symptoms, if true, put him in imminent danger at filing |
| Proper role of § 1915(g) at IFP threshold | Brown: § 1915(g) exception applies where complaint alleges imminent dangerous medical conditions | Defendants/District Ct: deny treating allegations as sufficient given prior refusals and factual disputes | Held: Court emphasized that § 1915(g) is a procedural threshold; courts generally accept plaintiff’s allegations as true at IFP stage and should not decide merits at that stage |
| Standard of review for denial of IFP under § 1915(g) | N/A (procedural) | N/A | Held: Third Circuit reviews denial for abuse of discretion; abuse occurs when decision rests on clearly erroneous factfinding or legal error; here district court abused its discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Abdul‑Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307 (3d Cir.) (en banc) (defines § 1915(g) three‑strikes rule and imminent danger exception)
- White v. Napoleon, 897 F.2d 103 (3d Cir. 1990) (prisoners' right to information necessary for informed consent to treatment)
- Ciarpaglini v. Saini, 352 F.3d 328 (7th Cir. 2003) (§ 1915(g) is a procedural threshold; courts generally accept allegations as true at IFP stage)
- Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2007) (discussing § 1915(g) as threshold and distinguishing merits screening provisions)
- Ibrahim v. District of Columbia, 463 F.3d 3 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (serious diseases can constitute imminent danger under § 1915(g))
- Brown v. Johnson, 387 F.3d 1344 (11th Cir. 2004) (failure to treat serious diseases like HIV/hepatitis can create imminent danger)
- Vandiver v. Prison Health Servs., Inc., 727 F.3d 580 (6th Cir. 2013) (incremental harm from failure to treat chronic conditions may satisfy § 1915(g))