Johnson v. Nunez
21-1108
| 10th Cir. | Jul 2, 2021Background
- Jabari J. Johnson, a Colorado prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed over 100 district-court suits and 30+ Tenth Circuit appeals alleging, among other things, denial of a medically necessary wheelchair and other ADA access and safety claims.
- Johnson filed a new suit repeating claims that prison officials denied him a wheelchair, access to ADA shower cells, law-library materials, and that staff exposed him to other inmates, endangering him.
- The district court dismissed the suit for failure to comply with preexisting filing restrictions (imposed March 2020), which required prepayment or court approval to proceed IFP and a notarized affidavit that the suit was not filed to harass defendants.
- The Tenth Circuit reviews dismissals for failure to follow court orders for abuse of discretion and concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion because Johnson had clear notice and failed to follow the filing requirements.
- The district court denied Johnson leave to proceed IFP on appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) because at least three prior suits were dismissed as frivolous; Johnson sought the imminent-danger exception based on denial of a doctor‑ordered wheelchair and resulting sores.
- The court recognized that denial of a medically necessary wheelchair can qualify as "imminent danger," but held that recognition did not excuse Johnson’s admitted failure to comply with filing restrictions; the court denied IFP and directed him to pay the full filing fee, warning of possible future sanctions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court properly dismissed the complaint for failure to comply with filing restrictions | Johnson argued merits of his Eighth/ADA claims and did not dispute the underlying factual allegations but proceeded without complying with the restrictions | The district court maintained Johnson had clear notice of requirements (prepay or obtain IFP approval and submit notarized non‑harassment affidavit) and failed to comply | Affirmed: dismissal was within the court's discretion because Johnson failed to follow explicit filing restrictions |
| Whether Johnson may proceed IFP on appeal under the § 1915(g) imminent‑danger exception | Johnson argued denial of a medically necessary wheelchair and lack of ADA shower access caused imminent danger (open sores, risk of harm) | Defendants (and the court) relied on § 1915(g) bar since three prior suits were dismissed as frivolous; imminent‑danger exception applies only if allegations show imminent risk and does not excuse procedural noncompliance | Denied IFP: court acknowledged wheelchair claim can meet imminent‑danger standard but denied IFP because Johnson conceded noncompliance with filing restrictions and failed to show the district court erred |
Key Cases Cited
- Gripe v. City of Enid, 312 F.3d 1184 (10th Cir. 2002) (standard of review and sanction authority for dismissal for failure to follow court orders)
- Fuller v. Wilcox, [citation="288 F. App'x 509"] (10th Cir. 2008) (denial of a medically necessary wheelchair can satisfy the imminent‑danger exception under the PLRA)