PEW v. FOLINO
2:11-cv-01003
| W.D. Pa. | Aug 8, 2011Background
- Pew, an inmate at SCI Rockview, seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) to file a civil rights action.
- Defendants include Superintendent Louis Folino and others; alleged violations occurred at SCI-Greene between September 29 and October 3.
- The magistrate judge notes Pew bears the burden to prove entitlement to IFP status.
- Court takes judicial notice of Pew’s extensive federal docket history, indicating multiple prior cases in district court and the court of appeals.
- Pew has accumulated at least three qualifying
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pew is eligible to proceed IFP under §1915(g). | Pew argues for IFP status despite prior dismissals. | Defendants contend Pew has three strikes and is not in imminent danger. | Not eligible; three strikes bar IFP absent imminent danger. |
| Whether Pew showed imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time of filing. | Pew asserts ongoing danger from the alleged misconduct. | Defendants argue no ongoing imminent danger after delays in filing. | No imminent danger present; filing not saved by imminent danger exception. |
| Whether dismissal and denial of IFP warrants dismissal with option to reopen by paying the filing fee. | Plaintiff seeks to proceed if allowed to reopen. | Court recommends dismissal for failure to pay, with reopening upon payment. | Recommendation to deny IFP and dismiss; reopening possible if full fee paid within 60 days. |
Key Cases Cited
- Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307 (3d Cir. 2001) (imminent danger requirement; three-strikes analysis)
- Keener v. Pennsylvania Bd. Of Probation and Parole, 128 F.3d 143 (3d Cir. 1997) (three-strikes rule; strikes count for pre-PLRA filings)