Brown v. Beard
11 A.3d 578
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2010Background
- Brown, a prisoner, filed a pro se civil rights complaint on September 10, 2009 in the trial court seeking damages, declaratory judgment, and injunctive relief against DOC officials and U.S. Marshals; petitioned to proceed in forma pauperis.
- The trial court dismissed the complaint on January 22, 2010 under Rule 240(j) for lack of an arguable basis in law or fact.
- Brown appealed on February 3, 2010; the trial court issued a Rule 1925(a) opinion focusing on PLRA § 6602(f) three strikes.
- Brown was deemed an abusive litigator under the three strikes rule and could seek injunctive relief only if he made a credible imminent-danger allegation.
- Brown alleged imminent danger from potential return to SCI-Pittsburgh and mistreatment exacerbating hepatitis C, hypoglycemia, GERD, bradycardia, and PTSD; the court found the danger not imminent.
- The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, applying the three strikes rule and rejecting the imminent-danger exception as speculative and not imminent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 240(j) dismissal complied with Rule 240(c)(3). | Brown contends Rule 240(c)(3) required a brief statement of reasons. | Beard/trial court held dismissal was proper under Rule 240(j). | Affirmed; Rule 240(j) dismissal sustained. |
| Whether Brown’s complaint was properly dismissed under 6602(f) as an abusive litigator. | Brown argues three strikes do not bar his suit given injunctive relief. | Brown is an abusive litigator; three strikes apply. | Affirmed; Brown qualifies as abusive litigator under 6602(f). |
| Whether Brown’s alleged imminent danger satisfied the PLRA exception to three strikes. | Credible allegation of imminent danger due to potential return and health risks. | Alleged danger is speculative and not imminent. | Not imminent; exception not satisfied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jae v. Good, 946 A.2d 802 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2008) (three-strikes rule applies to prison conditions actions)
- Com. v. Capitolo, 508 Pa. 372 (1985) (imminence definition: immediate, near at hand, impending)
- Com. v. Ostrosky, 589 Pa. 437 (2006) (statutory imminence interpreted for PLRA relief)
- Brown v. Levy, 993 A.2d 364 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2010) (abusive litigator status established by Brown I)
- Brown v. Pa. Dep’t of Corrections, 913 A.2d 301 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2006) (Brown deemed abusive litigator under PLRA)
- Brown v. James, 822 A.2d 128 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2003) (listing Brown’s prior frivolous dismissals)