Dante Burton v. William Schamp
707 F. App'x 754
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Pro se Pennsylvania inmate Dante Burton filed a § 1983 civil-rights complaint alleging retaliation by seven DOC employees after he filed a law-library grievance in Oct. 2016 (reduced library access, refusal to process an appeal, and a false misconduct charge later overturned).
- Burton filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) with his complaint; the district court received the complaint and his prison account statement in early July 2017.
- On July 10, 2017 the District Court sua sponte issued an extensive order dismissing the complaint as meritless for failure to plead retaliation sufficiently and denied Burton’s IFP motion for failing to comply with the Prison Litigation Reform Act, then marked the matter closed.
- Burton appealed on August 7, 2017; the District Court that day ordered the prison to begin deducting installment payments from Burton’s account under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).
- Burton moved for IFP on appeal; this Court’s Clerk granted that motion pending possible summary action.
- The Third Circuit found the district court denied IFP based on merits rather than Burton’s financial status and therefore abused its discretion; it vacated the IFP denial and the deduction order and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court properly denied IFP | Burton argued IFP should be granted based on indigence (he provided account statement) | District Court denied IFP because complaint lacked merit and referred to PLRA noncompliance | Denial abused discretion: IFP decisions must be based on financial status, not merits; vacated and remanded |
| Whether district court may dismiss complaint on merits while denying IFP | Burton implicitly argued procedure was improper without IFP analysis | District Court evaluated and dismissed complaint for failing to state retaliation claim | Court said merits review is improper basis for denying IFP; did not decide whether merits dismissal would be proper under §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) or 1915A |
| Whether prison may be ordered to deduct filing fee after IFP denial | Burton opposed deductions absent an IFP grant | District Court ordered installment deductions under § 1915(b) | Ordering deductions was improper after an IFP denial; deduction order vacated; funds should be returned if IFP ultimately not granted |
| Proper remedy/remand instructions | Burton sought reversal of IFP denial and deduction order | District Court had closed case and initiated deductions | Third Circuit vacated denial and deduction order and remanded for the district court to analyze IFP status and proceed accordingly |
Key Cases Cited
- Sinwell v. Shapp, 536 F.2d 15 (3d Cir. 1976) (IFP determinations should be based on indigence)
- Gibbs v. Ryan, 160 F.3d 160 (3d Cir. 1998) (practice to grant leave based on showing of indigence)
- Jones v. Zimmerman, 752 F.2d 76 (3d Cir. 1985) (review standard: abuse of discretion for IFP denials)
- Mitchell v. Horn, 318 F.3d 523 (3d Cir. 2003) (elements required to plead a prisoner § 1983 retaliation claim)