(PC) Hendon v. Kulka, 2:14-cv-02581

Plaintiff Carlos Hendon, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint challenging involuntary administration of antipsychotic medication and seeking to represent other inmates.
Hendon previously had at least three federal cases dismissed for failure to state a claim, triggering the PLRA "three strikes" bar under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Hendon sought in forma pauperis (IFP) status for this action and invoked the imminent-danger exception, alleging tremors and shakiness that might indicate tardive dyskinesia (TD).
The court found the instant complaint substantially identical to an earlier complaint filed in Hendon v. Kulka (filed May 9, 2014) and reviewed Judge Newman’s prior determination that Hendon failed to show imminent danger.
The court concluded Hendon did not demonstrate imminent danger at the time of filing (symptoms dated back to at least mid-2013 and no new facts were alleged), and therefore denied IFP; Hendon was ordered to pay the full $350 filing fee within 30 days or face dismissal.
Hendon also moved to file medical exhibits under seal pursuant to HIPAA; the court denied the sealing motion because the exhibits were already publicly filed in this and a prior case, waiving confidentiality.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Hendon may proceed IFP despite three prior dismissals under § 1915(g)	Hendon claimed he met the imminent-danger exception because tremors/shakiness could indicate TD, a potentially permanent serious injury	Government/record: Hendon has three qualifying dismissals and did not allege facts showing an imminent risk at filing; symptoms predated filing and no new imminent threat alleged	Denied IFP under § 1915(g); Hendon must pay full filing fee to proceed
Whether exhibits containing medical information should be filed under seal	Hendon sought sealing under HIPAA to protect confidential medical records	Court/defendants: Exhibits were already attached to a publicly filed complaint in this and a prior case, waiving confidentiality; local sealing rules require particularized showing	Motion to seal denied because exhibits already publicly available and plaintiff waived confidentiality

Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir.) (imminent-danger exception analyzed at time of filing)
Abdul–Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307 (3d Cir.) (discussing § 1915(g) and imminent-danger exception)
Medberry v. Butler, 185 F.3d 1189 (11th Cir.) ( § 1915(g) jurisprudence)
Ashley v. Dilworth, 147 F.3d 715 (8th Cir.) ( § 1915(g) principles)
Banos v. O'Guin, 144 F.3d 883 (5th Cir.) ( § 1915(g) principles)
United States v. Williams, 356 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir.) (recognizes liberty interest in freedom from unwanted antipsychotic drugs)