Kennedy v. Huibregtse
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 13667
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff, a Wisconsin state prisoner, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim (deliberate indifference) and a state-law medical malpractice claim and sought to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP).
- On his IFP form the plaintiff stated he had about $10 across all accounts and asked the court to deduct filing fees from his prison "release savings account."
- Discovery revealed the plaintiff had a separate outside law‑firm trust account with about $1,400 (funds from recouped child support) that he did not disclose on the IFP form.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A) for falsified poverty allegations; the district court dismissed the suit with prejudice and denied lesser sanctions as inadequate.
- The district judge briefly sought pro bono counsel evaluation from a private law firm before dismissal; the appellate opinion notes potential conflict concerns about that consultation but finds the dismissal ruling unaffected.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether falsifying IFP affidavit requires dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A) | Plaintiff implied omission was harmless because he later paid fees from prison funds and was effectively indigent | False statement about assets renders the allegation of poverty untrue and mandates dismissal | Court: IFP application was untrue; dismissal required under § 1915(e)(2)(A) |
| Whether dismissal should be with or without prejudice | Plaintiff (implicitly) argued lesser sanction or without prejudice would be appropriate | Defendants argued serious, deliberate concealment justified dismissal with prejudice | Court: Dismissal with prejudice was appropriate given deliberate, material deception and impracticality of lesser sanctions |
| Whether a good‑faith mistake could excuse the misstatement | Plaintiff claimed he didn’t know/trusted his estimate ($10) | Defendants pointed to spending from the trust account and other indicia showing knowledge and deliberate concealment | Court: Misstatements were deliberate and material; good‑faith exception did not apply |
| Whether judge’s consult with a private law firm created reversible conflict | Plaintiff did not raise this as central on appeal | Defendants relied on judge’s evaluation to justify not appointing counsel earlier | Court: Not reversible error here, but appellate court cautioned judges to check for conflicts before seeking advice from unaffiliated firms |
Key Cases Cited
- Veluchamy v. FDIC, 706 F.3d 810 (7th Cir.) (procedural waiver and briefing timeliness)
- Reget v. City of La Crosse, 595 F.3d 691 (7th Cir.) (six‑year § 1983 limitations period in Wisconsin)
- Malone v. Corrections Corp. of America, 553 F.3d 540 (7th Cir.) (statute of limitations for § 1983 claims)
- Thomas v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 288 F.3d 305 (7th Cir.) (dismissal with prejudice may be proper for perjurious IFP statements)
- Lee v. McDonald’s Corp., 231 F.3d 456 (8th Cir.) (good‑faith misstatement may excuse IFP falsehoods in some cases)
- Dobbey v. Mitchell‑Lawshea, 806 F.3d 938 (7th Cir.) (appointment of expert under Rule 706 discussed)
- Rowe v. Gibson, 798 F.3d 622 (7th Cir.) (appointment of counsel/expert considerations for prisoner civil rights suits)