Mustafa Ozsusamlar v. David Szoke
669 F. App'x 795
7th Cir.2016Background
- Plaintiff Mustafa Ozsusamlar, a federal prisoner, sued prison physician Dr. David Szoke under Bivens alleging deliberate indifference to medical needs (nasal infection, dental issues, inguinal hernia, kidney stones).
- A magistrate judge in the Southern District of Illinois granted summary judgment for Szoke, finding Ozsusamlar had not shown treatment was plainly deficient.
- Ozsusamlar applied for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal but failed to disclose that he had previously accumulated at least three prior civil-case dismissals (“strikes”) under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), which makes him ineligible for IFP.
- The court’s record shows multiple prior S.D.N.Y. dismissals for failure to state a claim and related deficiencies; Ozsusamlar did not disclose these when requesting IFP in the district court or on appeal.
- This nondisclosure was deemed a fraud on the court warranting immediate termination of the appeal; the court dismissed the appeal and ordered Ozsusamlar to pay appellate fees and barred filing unfiled papers until fees are paid.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Szoke violated the Eighth Amendment by denying necessary medical care | Ozsusamlar: Szoke deliberately withheld treatment for multiple conditions | Szoke: Medical care was not plainly deficient; no deliberate indifference shown | District court granted summary judgment for Szoke; appeal dismissed on other grounds (IFP misconduct) |
| Whether appellant could proceed IFP on appeal despite three prior PLRA "strikes" | Ozsusamlar: sought IFP; did not disclose strikes | Szoke/Respondent: Ozsusamlar ineligible under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) | Appellate court dismissed appeal for fraudulently failing to disclose IFP ineligibility |
| Whether failure to disclose prior strikes constitutes fraud warranting dismissal | Ozsusamlar: omission (no justification given) | Court: omission is deliberate and violates duty to alert court of strikes | Court held nondisclosure was fraud on the court and justified immediate termination of appeal |
| Appropriate sanctions/remedies for IFP fraud | Ozsusamlar: no argument shown in record | Court/Defendant: dismissal and fee-payment requirement; bar on filing unfiled papers until fees paid | Court ordered dismissal, directed payment of $505 appellate fees within 14 days, and filing restrictions until fees are paid |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (recognition of damages remedy for constitutional violations by federal officers)
- Ammons v. Gerlinger, 547 F.3d 724 (7th Cir. 2008) (litigant must alert court when he has three or more strikes)
- Sloan v. Lesza, 181 F.3d 857 (7th Cir. 1999) (procedures and consequences under PLRA; courts may refuse to file papers from ineligible litigant)
- Hoskins v. Dart, 633 F.3d 541 (7th Cir. 2011) (fraudulent IFP representations justify dismissal)
- Support Sys. Int’l, Inc. v. Mack, 45 F.3d 185 (7th Cir. 1995) (courts may return unfiled papers from litigant until fees are paid)