Crosby v. Oates (INMATE 1)
2:17-cv-00064
M.D. Ala.Apr 28, 2017Background
- Plaintiff William L. Crosby, an Alabama inmate, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenge to actions taken in December 2015 by clerks of the Alabama appellate courts and the Alabama Attorney General relating to his attempt to obtain review of his 2003 murder conviction.
- Federal courts in Alabama previously considered a similar filing by Crosby in the Southern District (styled differently), which that court construed as a § 1983 denial-of-access-to-courts claim and summarily dismissed it as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).
- The Magistrate Judge here recommended denying in forma pauperis status and dismissing the case pursuant to the "three strikes" rule of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), relying on Crosby’s prior dismissals as strikes.
- Crosby objected, arguing the Southern District had characterized his prior filing as mandamus rather than § 1983, pressing the merits of his claims, and invoking the imminent-danger exception to § 1915(g) based on general prison conditions and a 2015 inmate attack.
- The district court conducted de novo review, found the Southern District had properly characterized and dismissed the prior action as a § 1983 frivolous dismissal (a strike), rejected Crosby’s objections, held his asserted imminent-danger allegations insufficient, and adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation.
- Court orders: objection overruled; recommendation adopted; IFP denied; preliminary injunction denied; case dismissed without prejudice for failure to pay full filing and administrative fees at initiation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prior Southern District dismissal counts as a "strike" under § 1915(g) | Crosby contends prior filing was mandamus, not § 1983, so it should not be a strike | Prior court construed the filing as a § 1983 denial-of-access claim and dismissed it as frivolous | Court held the Southern District properly treated and dismissed the action as § 1983; it counts as a strike |
| Whether Crosby qualifies for the imminent-danger exception to § 1915(g) | Crosby cites general prison conditions reported in media and a 2015 inmate attack | Defendants argue general allegations and past attacks do not show imminent danger at filing | Court held general conditions and a past 2015 attack do not satisfy the imminent-danger exception for a 2017 filing |
| Whether the Magistrate’s Recommendation should be adopted | Crosby objects and argues merits and procedural characterizations | Magistrate recommends denial of IFP and dismissal under § 1915(g) based on three strikes | Court adopts Magistrate’s Recommendation; objection overruled |
| Whether jurisdiction exists to grant mandamus relief compelling Alabama courts | Crosby seeks show-cause/mandamus to order state court action | Court (Southern District) noted it lacks jurisdiction to compel actions by state court clerks | Court accepts that federal mandamus relief against state courts is unavailable and treats the claim as frivolous when so framed |
Key Cases Cited
- Owens v. Schwartz, [citation="519 F. App'x 992"] (11th Cir.) (past threats or harms do not satisfy the imminent-danger exception)
- Medberry v. Butler, 185 F.3d 1189 (11th Cir. 1999) (an allegation of past imminent danger does not invoke the imminent-danger exception)