Goldman v. Michigan Department of Corrections
2:19-cv-11597
| E.D. Mich. | Jul 3, 2019Background
- Plaintiff Lance Adam Goldman, a Michigan state prisoner, filed a pro se § 1983 civil rights complaint alleging denial of communication with his ailing mother.
- Goldman sought in forma pauperis (IFP) status to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee.
- Court reviewed Goldman's federal litigation history and identified multiple prior dismissals for frivolousness or failure to state a claim.
- Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) § 1915(g), a prisoner with three or more such dismissals cannot proceed IFP absent a credible allegation of imminent danger of serious physical injury.
- The complaint did not allege facts showing imminent danger of serious physical injury, so the § 1915(g) exception did not apply.
- Court denied IFP status, dismissed the complaint without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Goldman may proceed IFP despite prior dismissals under § 1915(g) | Goldman seeks IFP to pursue claim about denied communication with his mother | MDOC argues § 1915(g) bars IFP because Goldman has three or more prior qualifying dismissals | Court held § 1915(g) bars IFP because Goldman has multiple prior dismissals |
| Whether Goldman falls within § 1915(g)'s imminent-danger exception | Goldman alleged harm from denial of communication with an ailing mother | MDOC contends allegations do not show imminent danger of serious physical injury | Court held allegations do not establish imminent danger; exception does not apply |
| Whether the complaint should be dismissed or allowed to proceed if IFP denied | Goldman seeks to proceed in this action despite prior strikes | MDOC argues dismissal without prejudice is appropriate under § 1915(g) | Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice under § 1915(g) |
| Whether an appeal would be in good faith | Goldman could appeal dismissal | MDOC argues appeal would not be in good faith given § 1915(g) bar | Court certified any appeal would not be taken in good faith |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Prison Litigation Reform Act, 105 F.3d 1131 (6th Cir. 1997) (discusses PLRA fee and IFP procedures)
- Thaddeus-X v. Blatter, 175 F.3d 378 (6th Cir. 1999) (interprets § 1915(g) and imminent-danger exception)
- Clemons v. Young, 240 F. Supp. 2d 639 (E.D. Mich. 2003) (applies § 1915(g) three-strikes rule)
- Mulazim v. Michigan Dept. of Corrections, 28 Fed. Appx. 470 (6th Cir. 2002) (addresses § 1915(g) application to state prisoners)