Fourstar v. United States
950 F.3d 856
| Fed. Cir. | 2020Background
- Victor C. Fourstar, Jr. filed a Tucker Act complaint in the Court of Federal Claims while incarcerated, alleging the United States breached trust in managing Indian lands, resources, roads, and funds.
- He sought in forma pauperis (IFP) status; the Court of Federal Claims denied IFP under the PLRA three-strikes rule, finding he had multiple prior dismissals as frivolous or for failure to state a claim.
- Fourstar argued he met the § 1915(g) imminent-danger exception, citing pipeline leaks (Keystone XL, Dakota Access) and inadequate medical care in detention.
- The CFC held his imminent-danger allegations were speculative and lacked a nexus to his Tucker Act claims, required fee payment, and dismissed the complaint without prejudice when he did not pay.
- Fourstar appealed to the Federal Circuit; the court accepted the appeal (did not require fee because Fourstar was not a prisoner at the time of filing the notice of appeal) and reviewed the CFC denial for abuse of discretion.
- The Federal Circuit affirmed: the three-strikes rule applied and the imminent-danger exception did not, so denial of IFP and dismissal without prejudice was proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1915(g) three‑strikes rule barred IFP | Fourstar asserted his Tucker Act claim is meritorious and not frivolous | Gov't pointed to multiple prior dismissals as frivolous/for failure to state a claim | Court: Three‑strikes rule applies; CFC did not abuse discretion |
| Whether imminent‑danger exception to §1915(g) applies | Fourstar claimed imminent danger from pipeline leaks and detention medical neglect | Gov't argued alleged dangers were speculative and unconnected to Tucker Act claim | Court: Exception requires nexus to the complaint and imminent, traceable harm; Fourstar failed to show nexus or imminent danger |
| Whether appeal filing required IFP under §1915(g) | Fourstar requested IFP in this court | Gov't noted prisoner status must exist at time of filing notice of appeal | Court: Fourstar was not a prisoner when he filed the notice of appeal; Fed. Cir. accepted appeal and did not require fee under FRAP 3(a)(2) |
Key Cases Cited
- Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992) (standard for IFP frivolousness review under PLRA)
- Millhouse v. Heath, 866 F.3d 152 (3d Cir. 2017) (PLRA three‑strikes rule is triggered by status when notice of appeal is filed)
- Harris v. City of New York, 607 F.3d 18 (2d Cir. 2010) (prisoner status must exist at moment of filing to invoke §1915(g))
- Pettus v. Morgenthau, 554 F.3d 293 (2d Cir. 2009) (imminent‑danger exception requires adequate nexus between alleged danger and the claims)
- Vandiver v. Prison Health Servs., Inc., 727 F.3d 580 (6th Cir. 2013) (complaint must allege facts permitting inference of existing danger at filing)
- Qingdao Taifa Grp. Co. v. United States, 581 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for reviewing discretionary rulings)