Davis v. Geo Group Corrections, Inc.
696 F. App'x 851
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Ezekiel Davis, an Oklahoma state prisoner, filed a § 1983 complaint alleging deliberate indifference to serious medical needs (chronic severe back pain, probable spinal stenosis/radiculopathy, and an untreated plantar wart) and requested orthopedic footwear and specialist care.
- Davis moved to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP); the magistrate judge identified three prior qualifying PLRA "strikes" and recommended denying IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) because Davis had not shown imminent danger of serious physical injury.
- The district court adopted the recommendation, denied IFP, and dismissed the complaint without prejudice when Davis failed to pay the filing fee; a later motion to reopen asserting new allegations (diagnosis by Dr. Musallam and a refusal to refer for MRI) was denied.
- Davis appealed and the Tenth Circuit directed him to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed under § 1915(g); Davis argued he met the imminent-danger exception and applied to proceed IFP on appeal.
- The Tenth Circuit, construing pro se pleadings liberally and accepting Davis’s allegations as true for the § 1915(g) exception, concluded his allegations of chronic, debilitating back pain and denial of referrals for MRI/specialist care sufficiently alleged imminent danger to permit IFP on appeal.
- The Tenth Circuit granted IFP for appeal, vacated the district court’s denial of IFP, and remanded for further proceedings while noting the district court may still screen and dismiss the complaint on other grounds and may resolve factual disputes about imminent danger on a fuller record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1915(g) bars IFP because of three strikes | Davis: despite three strikes, he faces imminent danger from untreated/progressing spinal disease and denial of specialist/MRI | Defendants: prior dismissals trigger § 1915(g); Davis had received some treatment and did not demonstrate imminent danger | Court: Davis sufficiently alleged imminent danger; allowed IFP on appeal and vacated district court denial |
| Whether Davis’s allegations meet the PLRA imminent-danger standard | Davis: chronic severe back pain, numbness, diagnosis of degenerative disk disease, defendants refused referrals/MRI | Defendants/district court: medical visits and provision of medications/insoles show responsiveness and negate imminent risk | Court: allegations (severity, diagnosis, refusal to refer) are specific and credible enough at pleading stage to meet exception |
| Standard for evaluating § 1915(g) exception at screening vs. later factual challenge | Davis: his pleadings suffice to trigger exception and preliminary IFP | Defendants: court can consider medical record and affidavits to contest imminent danger | Court: pleadings suffice for provisional IFP; defendants may later mount factual challenge by evidence or hearing |
| Effect of granting IFP on future merits screening | Davis: IFP should allow service and progression of case | Defendants: IFP does not prevent dismissal for frivolousness, failure to state claim, or immunity | Court: IFP granted provisionally; case may still be dismissed on screening or after factual challenge |
Key Cases Cited
- Childs v. Miller, 713 F.3d 1262 (10th Cir. 2013) (PLRA designed to curb prisoner litigation)
- Strope v. Cummings, 653 F.3d 1271 (10th Cir. 2011) (prisoners generally must prepay filing fees; IFP with installments is exception)
- Smith v. Veterans Admin., 636 F.3d 1306 (10th Cir. 2011) (three-strikes bar under § 1915(g))
- Hafed v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 635 F.3d 1172 (10th Cir. 2011) (requirements for credible, specific imminent-danger allegations)
- Brown v. Johnson, 387 F.3d 1344 (11th Cir. 2004) (medical treatment cessation can create imminent danger for § 1915(g))
- McAlphin v. Toney, 281 F.3d 709 (8th Cir. 2002) (need for dental extractions sufficient for imminent-danger exception)
- Gibbs v. Cross, 160 F.3d 962 (3d Cir. 1998) (environmental exposure allegations satisfied imminent-danger requirement)
- Fuller v. Myers, [citation="123 F. App'x 365"] (10th Cir. 2005) (prisoner’s respiratory allegations met imminent-danger standard)