Jerry Vandiver v. Prison Health Services, Inc.
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 17028
| 6th Cir. | 2013Background
- Plaintiff Jerry Vandiver, a prisoner with chronic diabetes and Hepatitis C, filed a pro se verified complaint alleging deliberate indifference by prison medical providers after being denied physician-ordered care (special shoes, diet, medication, specialist referrals) and suffering prior partial foot amputations and visual impairment.
- Vandiver conceded he has three prior dismissals under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (the "three-strikes" rule) and invoked the § 1915(g) imminent-danger exception to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP).
- The district court initially granted IFP but then sua sponte reconsidered and denied IFP under § 1915(g), finding Vandiver had alleged only past harm and that future amputations were not sufficiently "imminent."
- Vandiver appealed; the Sixth Circuit reviewed the legal question de novo and the denial of pauper status for abuse of discretion.
- The Sixth Circuit held that allegations of ongoing denial of treatment for serious chronic illnesses can satisfy the § 1915(g) imminent-danger exception because progressive, incremental harm that will culminate in serious injury is as dangerous as an immediate, single-event injury.
- The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court and remanded, finding Vandiver’s allegations (present withholding of care and risk of further amputations, coma, death) sufficient to invoke the imminent-danger exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ongoing failure to treat chronic illnesses can satisfy § 1915(g) imminent-danger exception | Vandiver: present denial of treatment for diabetes/Hep C places him in imminent danger of serious injury (further amputations, coma, death) | Pandya: chronic conditions produce only potential future harm; not "imminent"; allegations are conclusory | Held: Yes. Ongoing denial of treatment for serious chronic illness may constitute imminent danger; Vandiver pleadings suffice |
| Whether allegations were merely past harms or conclusory | Vandiver: complaint + affidavit show present, continuing denial and detailed medical history; not purely conclusory | Pandya: allegations focus on past amputations; rely on Twombly/Iqbal pleading standards | Held: Court rejects Twombly/Iqbal bar here; plaintif f’s verified allegations and supporting documents sufficiently plead imminent danger |
| Whether § 1915(g) requires nexus between imminent danger and each claim/defendant (Second Circuit standard) | Vandiver: allegations link withheld care to Eighth Amendment claims; can proceed with all claims once one claim satisfies exception | Pandya: Pettus standard requires nexus to each defendant/claim | Held: Court declines to adopt Pettus requirement but notes even under Pettus Vandiver’s allegations meet the traceability/nexus requirement |
| Whether prisoner must seek preliminary injunctive relief to show imminence | Vandiver: not required | Pandya (argued at oral argument): preliminary injunction should be required to show imminence | Held: Rejected; § 1915(g) does not impose a preliminary-injunction requirement on IFP applicants |
Key Cases Cited
- Vandiver v. Vasbinder, [citation="416 F. App'x 560"] (6th Cir. 2011) (pleading standard for imminent-danger exception and liberal construction for pro se filings)
- Brown v. Johnson, 387 F.3d 1344 (11th Cir. 2004) (withholding treatment for HIV/hepatitis can constitute imminent danger)
- Ibrahim v. District of Columbia, 463 F.3d 3 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (failure to provide Hepatitis C treatment presents sufficient imminent danger)
- Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2007) (if one claim alleges imminent danger, the entire action may proceed IFP)
- Pettus v. Morgenthau, 554 F.3d 293 (2d Cir. 2009) (articulated a nexus/traceability test between alleged imminent danger and complaint claims)
- Chavis v. Chappius, 618 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2010) (clarified that once nexus shown for one claim, the whole action may proceed IFP)