Lopez v. Haywood
2012 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 61
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2012Background
- Lopez, an inmate at SCI-Greene, filed a Petition for Review in this Court originally; the matter was transferred to the Greene County trial court.
- Lopez was granted IFP status initially; Defendants moved to revoke IFP and dismiss under PLRA 6602(f)'s three-strikes rule.
- Trial court revoked IFP status, dismissed the Petition for Review and all related matters, and Lopez attempted to pay the filing fees after revocation.
- Lopez filed a Motion for Special Relief claiming imminent danger of serious bodily injury due to placement in RHU with mentally ill inmates.
- Trial court found Lopez had at least three frivolous/malicious prison conditions dismissals, and that his imminent danger claim was not credible; relief denied.
- Appeal focused on whether Lopez could proceed by paying fees after IFP revocation and whether the Motion for Special Relief could be maintained.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of IFP revocation and dismissal under 6602(f) | Lopez argues three strikes barred IFP but he should be allowed to pay fees. | PLRA permits dismissal after three strikes regardless of later fee payment; no right to proceed IFP. | Affirmed on IFP revocation; upheld dismissal under 6602(f). |
| Duty to allow fee payment after IFP revocation | Lopez attempted to pay fees; due process requires opportunity to proceed by paying costs. | No obligation to allow payment to revive IFP-litigation after revocation. | Remanded to determine fees Lopez would have paid; should pay if not paying, dismissal proper. |
| Imminent danger exception to 6602(f) for Motion for Special Relief | Lopez credibly alleges imminent danger preventing dismissal. | Allegations fail to show imminent danger of serious bodily injury. | Motion for Special Relief denied; no credible imminent danger. |
| Remedy when IFP is revoked but fees may be paid | Continue by paying costs; avoid complete dismissal of petition. | Efficiency concerns; otherwise, proceed as ordinary litigation or dismiss under 6602(e)(2). | Court must allow payment of fees and costs to proceed unless ultimately dismissed under 6602(e)(2). |
| Overall disposition and remand instructions | Should not bar Lopez from pursuit due to prior dismissals if fees paid. | Subject to 6602(f) and 6602(e)(2) determinations; fees list to be compiled. | Affirm in part, vacate in part, remand for fee calculation and payment timeline. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jae v. Good, 946 A.2d 802 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (three strikes rule constitutional; deters frivolous suits while preserving access)
- McCool v. Department of Corrections, 984 A.2d 565 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (prisoner may proceed by paying costs after IFP revocation if not frivolous)
- Corliss v. Varner, 934 A.2d 748 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (prior Corliss upheld dismissal under three strikes despite later payment)
- Brown v. Beard, 11 A.3d 578 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (imminent danger requires immediate, impending threat; speculative claims inadequate)
- Commonwealth v. Capitolo, 508 Pa. 372, 498 A.2d 806 (1985) (defines imminent danger standard for injunctive relief in PLRA context)