Dawn Ball v. Famiglio
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 16529
| 3rd Cir. | 2013Background
- Ball, an indigent inmate at SCI-Muncy, sues for deliberate indifference to medical needs under §1983 and seeks IFP status.
- The district court denied preliminary relief and later granted summary judgment based on exhaustion and personnel involvement defenses.
- This appeal concerns whether Ball is eligible for IFP under the PLRA three strikes rule (18 U.S.C. §1915(g)).
- Ball has a history of numerous dismissed actions; the court must determine which dismissals count as strikes for PLRA purposes.
- The court analyzes whether exhaustion-based dismissals and immunity-based dismissals count as PLRA strikes and whether Ball can proceed under the imminent danger exception to §1915(g).
- The court ultimately holds Ball three strikes and denies IFP unless imminent danger is shown at the time of filing, which is not sufficiently established by Ball’s mold and related claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the three strikes rule bars Ball from IFP status | Ball contends she has not accrued three strikes | Defendants maintain Ball has three strikes based on prior dismissals | Yes; Ball has three strikes at filing. |
| Whether exhaustion-based or immunity-based dismissals count as PLRA strikes | Ball argues these dismissals do not count as strikes | Defendants rely on prior rulings treating those dismissals as strikes when final | Exhaustion-based dismissals do not count unless facially shown as unexhausted and dismissed for failure to state a claim; immunity-based dismissals do not count as strikes unless explicitly counted as frivolous. |
| Whether Ball qualifies for the imminent danger exception to §1915(g) | Ball claims imminent danger from mold, mace exposure, vision and back issues | Record contradicts mold exposure; ongoing health issues contested | Imminent danger not established; three strikes bar IFP. |
| Whether remand or further factual development is needed on mold claim | Imminent danger could be supported by mold exposure | Record lacks credible mold exposure at filing | No remand; record does not support imminent danger. |
| Whether the timing of strike accrual affects IFP viability | Accrual should be considered only after final dismissal on appeal | Accrual occurs when the dismissal is final | Strike accrual effective from final, affirmable disposition. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (U.S. 2007) (exhaustion not required to be pleaded in complaints but relevant to PLRA)
- Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (U.S. 1992) (¯purpose of IFP and frivolousness assessment")
- Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307 (3d Cir. 2001) (imminent danger must be imminent at time of filing; mold exposure example)
- Ray v. Kertes, 285 F.3d 287 (3d Cir. 2002) (failure to exhaust as affirmative defense; §1997e(c) dismissal guidance)
- Gibbs v. Cross, 160 F.3d 962 (3d Cir. 1998) (imminent danger standard applied; mold/air quality context)
- Thompson v. Drug Enforcement Admin., 492 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (exhaustion facial disclosure and Rule 12(b)(6) relation to PLRA)