2024 COA 5
Colo. Ct. App.2024Background
- Jabari J. Johnson, an inmate in a Colorado Department of Corrections facility, filed a civil complaint challenging conditions of confinement and actions of a DOC employee.
- Johnson has a history of filing lawsuits deemed frivolous, groundless, or failing to state a claim, triggering the "three strikes rule" under section 13-17.5-102.7(1), which bars further in forma pauperis (IFP) filings.
- Johnson sought to avoid prepayment of filing fees by invoking the "imminent danger of serious physical injury" exception under section 13-17.5-102.7(2).
- The district court denied his IFP request and dismissed his complaint for failure to pay filing fees, not making specific findings on the imminent danger exception.
- On appeal, Johnson argued he had adequately alleged imminent danger and that the exception should apply.
- The Colorado Court of Appeals clarified how courts should analyze the imminent danger exception, ultimately affirming dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Requirement to assess imminent danger exception to three strikes | Johnson argued imminent danger should allow IFP status | (No appearance) | Court must review for, but not always make specific findings on, the exception |
| Standard for "imminent danger of serious physical injury" | Johnson argued his complaint alleged imminent danger | (No appearance) | Adopted three-part test: allegations must be specific, imminent, and linked to relief sought |
| Sufficiency of Johnson’s allegations | Johnson asserted general fear and harm from staff/others | (No appearance) | Court found allegations vague, conclusory, and lacking necessary specificity and nexus |
| Nexus of relief sought to alleged danger | Johnson sought money damages, claimed harm ongoing | (No appearance) | Court found no nexus between claims for relief and alleged imminent danger |
Key Cases Cited
- Collins v. Jaquez, 15 P.3d 299 (Colo. App. 2000) (articulates trial court discretion regarding indigency and IFP status)
- Schwartz v. Owens, 134 P.3d 455 (Colo. App. 2005) (sets de novo review standard for interpreting statutes related to IFP filings)
- White v. Colorado, 157 F.3d 1226 (10th Cir. 1998) (federal standard for specificity in imminent danger allegations under three-strikes rule)