El v. Saginaw Correctional Facility
1:17-cv-11117
E.D. Mich.Dec 8, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Reginald El, a Michigan state prisoner, filed a pro se § 1983 civil-rights complaint and asked to proceed without prepaying the filing fee.
- The Court previously denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed the complaint under the PLRA "three strikes" bar, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
- Plaintiff filed an "Affidavit Accompanying Motion to Inform on Appeal" (construed as a motion for reconsideration).
- El contends he did not seek to proceed IFP but instead sought the Court’s assistance in procuring anticipated funds (Social Security payments and an IRS refund) to pay the filing fee.
- El alternatively argues he should be allowed IFP status under the § 1915(g) imminent-danger exception; he offered only conclusory allegations without supporting facts.
- The Court denied relief: it refused to order or garnish funds from third-party agencies and found El’s imminent-danger claim unsupported, so reconsideration was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court should reconsider dismissal under Local Rule 7.1(h)(3) | El argues he did not seek IFP but sought Court help obtaining outside funds to pay the fee | Court maintains dismissal under § 1915(g) was proper and reconsideration requires a palpable defect | Denied — no palpable defect shown; motion rehashes prior matters |
| Whether the Court can order garnishment or obtain funds from Social Security or IRS to pay filing fee | El asks the Court to procure/remit anticipated Social Security and IRS refund to cover fee | Court: § 1915(b) authorizes only the custodian of prisoner funds to forward payments; it cannot order third-party agencies to remit or garnish those accounts | Denied — Court will not adjudicate collateral claims or garnish third-party funds |
| Whether El qualifies for § 1915(g) imminent-danger exception | El asserts imminent danger of serious physical injury justifying IFP despite three strikes | Court requires specific factual support for imminent-danger claim | Denied — allegation conclusory and unsupported |
| Whether the complaint should proceed despite PLRA three-strikes bar | El challenges the application of PLRA consequences to his filing | Court: Plaintiff has three prior strikes; absent valid imminent-danger exception or payment, dismissal was appropriate | Denied — PLRA bar affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Lockett, 328 F. Supp. 2d 682 (E.D. Mich. 2004) (defining a "palpable defect")
- United States v. Cican, 156 F. Supp. 2d 661 (E.D. Mich. 2001) (clarifying "palpable defect" standard)
- Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Engler, 146 F.3d 367 (6th Cir. 1998) (motions for reconsideration not a vehicle to rehash prior arguments)