Quentin Ridley v. Barbara Jones
688 F. App'x 237
5th Cir.2017Background
- Ridley, a Texas prisoner, filed a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Gateway Foundation personnel and Havins Unit staff alleging retaliation/conspiracy for his use of the grievance procedure, resulting in administrative segregation and a false disciplinary charge.
- The district court dismissed the complaint as frivolous and denied Ridley in forma pauperis (IFP) status, finding the appeal not taken in good faith.
- Ridley sought leave to proceed IFP on appeal, challenging the district court’s certification and arguing, among other points, that he did not receive a fair Spears hearing and that factual findings/denials of motion practice were improper.
- The court analyzes whether the appeal is legally nonfrivolous under Howard v. King and concludes Ridley’s arguments lack arguable merit.
- The court holds Ridley’s access-to-courts claim is unfounded, his retaliation/conspiracy claims lack merit, and the district court’s Spears hearing and factual findings were not improper.
- Ridley is assessed three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and is barred from proceeding IFP in future civil actions or appeals unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ridley may proceed IFP on appeal | Ridley argues the district court erred and that his appeal has merit | Court denied IFP as frivolous; claims lack arguable merit | Appeal dismissed as frivolous; IFP denied |
| Whether Ridley’s retaliation/conspiracy claims have merit | Ridley contends retaliation/conspiracy for grievance use | Claims lack plausibly supported facts and legal basis | Claims meritless |
| Whether Ridley qualifies for IFP under the 1915(g) bar | Ridley challenges the strike status | Ridley has accumulated three strikes and cannot proceed IFP | Ridley barred under § 1915(g); sanctions compliance warned |
Key Cases Cited
- Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215 (5th Cir. 1983) (frivolousness standard for IFP appeals)
- Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197 (5th Cir. 1997) (good-faith/arguable-merits standard for IFP appeals)
- Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985) ( Spears hearing as part of frivolousness assessment)
- Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371 (5th Cir. 2005) (limits impact of district-court errors on frivolousness ruling)
- Cupit v. Jones, 835 F.2d 82 (5th Cir. 1987) (appointment of counsel evidences discretion in frivolity context)
- Williamson v. United States Dep’t of Agriculture, 815 F.2d 368 (5th Cir. 1987) (considerations on IFP and related relief)
- Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 1996) (three-strikes rule interpretation under § 1915)
- Jones v. Greninger, 188 F.3d 322 (5th Cir. 1999) (access-to-courts and retaliation precedents)
- Young v. Biggers, 938 F.2d 565 (5th Cir. 1991) (retaliation framework in prison context)