McFadden v. U.S. Department of Justice
270 F. Supp. 3d 82
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Reginald McFadden, a federal prisoner serving sentences for violent crimes, filed a FOIA suit against the Department of Justice seeking FBI records from 1990s prosecutions.
- McFadden was granted in forma pauperis (IFP) status in 2015 but has not made any partial fee payments ordered by the court.
- The DOJ searched and produced responsive records (322 pages: 67 released in full, 161 partially, 94 withheld) and moved to dismiss or for summary judgment.
- The court sua sponte identified that McFadden has more than three prior dismissals qualifying as "strikes" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and ordered him to show cause why IFP should not be revoked.
- McFadden claimed the imminent-danger exception to the three-strikes rule based on untreated Hepatitis C, though his FOIA suit is unrelated to his medical condition.
- The court concluded McFadden has at least three strikes, held the imminent-danger exception requires a nexus to the litigation, revoked IFP, and ordered payment of the full filing fee by a deadline or dismissal without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McFadden has three qualifying strikes under § 1915(g) | Argues some strikes are based on misunderstandings and pre-PLRA dismissals should not count | DOJ identified multiple prior dismissals meeting § 1915(g) and that pre-PLRA dismissals count | Court found at least three strikes and rejected plaintiff's challenges, citing D.C. Circuit precedent |
| Whether the three-strikes rule may be waived by Defendant's failure to raise it early | Implies DOJ's delay wasted resources and should waive the rule | DOJ contends § 1915(g) is not waivable; courts protect judicial resources and public fisc | Court held the rule is not waivable by defendant's omission |
| Whether pre-PLRA dismissals count as strikes | McFadden contends strikes from 1995 should not apply because PLRA effective 1996 | DOJ and precedent say pre-PLRA dismissals count | Court followed D.C. Circuit in Ibrahim and counted pre-PLRA dismissals |
| Whether the § 1915(g) "imminent danger" exception applies when the alleged danger is unrelated to the claim | McFadden asserts imminent danger from Hepatitis C justifies IFP for this FOIA suit | DOJ argues FOIA claim is unrelated and thus exception should not apply | Court held the exception requires a nexus between alleged imminent danger and the claim; exception unavailable here |
Key Cases Cited
- Asemani v. USCIS, 797 F.3d 1069 (D.C. Cir.) (discusses timing and application of the imminent-danger exception)
- Pettus v. Morgenthau, 554 F.3d 293 (2d Cir.) (holds § 1915(g) requires an adequate nexus between claims and alleged imminent danger)
- Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307 (3d Cir. en banc) (PLRA imminent-danger exception aims to prevent future harms and requires relation to the action)
- Ibrahim v. District of Columbia, 208 F.3d 1032 (D.C. Cir.) (pre-PLRA dismissals count as strikes under § 1915(g))
- Green v. Bock Laundry Mach. Co., 490 U.S. 504 (U.S. 1989) (statutory interpretation should consider context and structure)