Daniel 537193 v. Johns
2:14-cv-00166
W.D. Mich.Mar 31, 2015Background
- Plaintiff Allen Daniel, a prisoner, seeks to proceed in forma pauperis in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action.
- Plaintiff has filed at least three prior lawsuits that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim.
- PLRA 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) prohibits such IFP status unless the prisoner is under imminent danger.
- Court determines Plaintiff does not allege imminent danger at the time of filing; claims concern past events in 2011.
- Plaintiff must pay the $400 filing fee within 28 days or the case will be dismissed without prejudice while still owing the fee.
- Court will screen the complaint after payment as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and § 1997e(c).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Daniel qualifies to proceed in forma pauperis under § 1915(g). | Daniel argues he should be allowed IFP. | Daniel has three strikes and cannot proceed IFP absent imminent danger. | No; three-strikes bar applies absent imminent danger. |
| Whether Daniel's allegations show imminent danger of serious physical injury. | Alleges ongoing danger from past events**, seeking imminent-danger relief. | Allegations concern past dangers not contemporaneous to filing. | Allegations do not meet imminent-danger exception; past dangers insufficient. |
| Whether the filing fee must be paid within 28 days or the case is dismissed. | Plaintiff should be allowed time to pay. | Failure to pay triggers dismissal without prejudice with fee still owed. | Plaintiff must pay $400 within 28 days or case is dismissed without prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hampton v. Hobbs, 106 F.3d 1281 (6th Cir. 1997) (PLRA aims to curb meritless prisoner filings; three-strikes policy upheld)
- Wilson v. Yaklich, 148 F.3d 596 (6th Cir. 1998) (Constitutionality of three-strikes upheld; imminent danger exception exists)
- Pointer v. Wilkinson, 502 F.3d 369 (6th Cir. 2007) (Imminent danger inquiry requires real or proximate danger at filing)
- Rittner v. Kinder, 290 F. App’x 796 (6th Cir. 2008) (Imminent danger must be pled with support; past danger insufficient; not baseless)
- Taylor v. First Med. Mgmt., 508 F. App’x 488 (6th Cir. 2012) (Past dangers not sufficient for imminent-danger exception)
- Vandiver v. Prison Health Serv., Inc., 727 F.3d 580 (6th Cir. 2013) (Imminent danger analysis requires plausible, not speculative, allegations)