In Re Kissi
397 U.S. App. D.C. 307
| D.C. Cir. | 2011Background
- Kissi, pro se, filed mandamus petitions seeking to prevent transfer of two civil cases to Maryland.
- Grant held PLRA filing fee applies to mandamus petitions related to underlying civil cases.
- Kissi moved to proceed in forma pauperis; motions held in abeyance pending Grant.
- Court ordered show-cause why he should not be required to pay full appellate fees under §1915(g).
- Kissi had prior civil actions likely counting as “strikes” under §1915(g); he lacked imminent danger exception.
- Court concluded mandamus petitions are subject to §1915(g); denied in forma pauperis status and required full fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1915(g) applies to mandamus petitions in underlying civil cases. | Kissi argues three-strikes should not bar mandamus. | Court follows Grant; three-strikes applies to mandamus in underlying civil actions. | Yes; §1915(g) applies to mandamus petitions. |
| Whether the imminent danger exception salvages Kissi’s in forma pauperis status. | Kissi contends imminent danger exists. | No imminent danger shown; exception not satisfied. | Imminent danger exception does not apply. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Grant, 635 F.3d 1227 (D.C.Cir.2011) (filing-fee provision applies to mandamus in underlying civil cases)
- Ibrahim v. District of Columbia, 463 F.3d 3 (D.C.Cir.2006) (imminent danger exception to §1915(g))
- In re Crittenden, 143 F.3d 919 (5th Cir.1998) (three-strikes applies to mandamus petitions)
- In re Tyler, 110 F.3d 528 (8th Cir.1997) (three-strikes applies to mandamus petitions)
- Green v. Nottingham, 90 F.3d 415 (10th Cir.1996) (three-strikes applied to mandamus context)