Joseph Brown v. Sage
17-1222
3rd Cir.Oct 30, 2019Background
- Joseph Brown, a federal prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights suits in the Middle District of Pennsylvania and repeatedly sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP).
- Three earlier federal cases in California (Brown I, Brown II, Profitt) were dismissed for failure to state a claim; the California courts treated those dismissals as § 1915(g) “strikes.”
- The district court denied Brown’s IFP motions in Sage, Kemmerer, and Dees under the PLRA three-strikes rule and found he did not meet the imminent-danger exception.
- Brown appealed and sought IFP status for the appeals; a divided panel originally granted IFP, but the court reheard the matter en banc.
- The en banc court clarified the procedural framework for assessing IFP/PLRA matters, held that courts may consider the merits “at any time,” and ruled Profitt counted as Brown’s third strike.
- Because Brown had accrued three strikes and did not show imminent danger, the court denied his motions to proceed IFP on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether courts must follow a rigid two-step IFP process (first financial status, then merits) | Brown: continue the established two-step approach; merits only after IFP granted | Gov't: PLRA allows courts to screen merits whenever appropriate to conserve resources | Court: PLRA permits flexible review; courts may assess merits “at any time” under § 1915(e)(2) |
| When a prisoner has “brought an action” under § 1915(g) (i.e., when a strike accrues) | Brown: action is not “brought” until court authorizes commencement (IFP granted) | Gov't: action is “brought” when prisoner tenders/submits the complaint and IFP request | Court: “brought an action” occurs upon tender/submission of the complaint to the court; such submissions can count as strikes |
| Whether Profitt’s dismissal qualified as a § 1915(g) strike given a form order and magistrate recommendation | Brown: Profitt did not clearly dismiss the entire action for failure to state a claim; thus not a strike | Gov't: Form order and accompanying recommendation show dismissal for failure to state a claim and warn of a strike | Court: Profitt’s form order and magistrate’s reasons show the entire action was dismissed for failure to state a claim; it counts as a strike |
| Whether Brown qualified for the imminent-danger exception to § 1915(g) | Brown: alleged injuries (mental-health claims, burn injury) implicated imminent danger | Gov't: Brown did not show imminent danger of serious physical injury | Court: Brown failed to establish imminent danger; exception not met |
Key Cases Cited
- Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307 (3d Cir. 2001) (en banc) (earlier Third Circuit framing of IFP two-step analysis)
- Roman v. Jeffes, 904 F.2d 192 (3d Cir. 1990) (discusses the pre-PLRA two-step IFP procedure)
- Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992) (describes IFP abuse concerns and frivolous-suit screening)
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007) (PLRA’s aim to reduce frivolous prisoner suits and promote early screening)
- Byrd v. Shannon, 715 F.3d 117 (3d Cir. 2013) (articulates bright-line rule for when a dismissal counts as a § 1915(g) strike)
- O’Neal v. Price, 531 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2008) (supports treating tendered complaints as “brought” for § 1915(g))
- Ford v. Johnson, 362 F.3d 395 (7th Cir. 2004) (treats submission of complaint as bringing an action under PLRA)