654 F. App'x 822
7th Cir.2016Background
- Plaintiff Moses Ramirez, incarcerated in Kane County, Illinois, filed a § 1983 suit alleging false testimony and collusion involving a codefendant, judge, prosecutor, and his lawyer related to a pending state drug prosecution.
- Ramirez used a court form that asked him to list all prior lawsuits; he disclosed only a 2001 Texas suit he said he could not recall.
- The district court granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and then screened and dismissed the complaint under § 1915A.
- A review of Ramirez’s litigation history shows multiple prior dismissals as frivolous or for failure to state a claim, producing at least three PLRA “strikes” before this filing.
- Because Ramirez had three or more strikes, he was ineligible for IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) unless qualifying for the imminent-danger exception, and his nondisclosure misrepresented his eligibility.
- The Seventh Circuit concluded Ramirez committed fraud on the court by falsely representing IFP eligibility, assessed an additional strike, dismissed the appeal, directed payment of appellate fees within 14 days, and ordered clerks to return unfiled papers until fees are paid.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eligibility for IFP under § 1915(g) | Ramirez implied he had no disqualifying prior strikes by listing only one forgotten Texas case | Ramirez in fact had multiple prior dismissals (strikes) making him ineligible for IFP | Ramirez was ineligible for IFP; misrepresentation warranted sanction and dismissal |
| Duty to disclose prior suits on court form | Ramirez claimed incapacity to recall details of prior suits; disclosed only one | Courts require accurate disclosure of litigation history when seeking IFP | Failure to disclose prior strikes was fraudulent and grounds to terminate appeal as sanction |
| Sanction for fraudulent IFP application | Ramirez implicitly sought to proceed without fees | Court urged sanction to prevent abuse of PLRA and preserve docket integrity | Appeal dismissed; ordered payment of $505 appellate fees within 14 days and entry of an additional strike |
| Restriction on future filings | Ramirez sought to continue filing despite unpaid fees | Circuit may restrict filing privileges until outstanding fees paid | Clerks instructed to return unfiled papers (except collateral attacks on imprisonment) until fees satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- Sloan v. Lesza, 181 F.3d 857 (7th Cir. 1999) (false IFP representations can constitute fraud on the court)
- Hoskins v. Dart, 633 F.3d 541 (7th Cir. 2011) (failure to disclose prior strikes permits immediate termination of appeal)
- Ammons v. Gerlinger, 547 F.3d 724 (7th Cir. 2008) (PLRA strike rules and sanctions for abuse of IFP privilege)
- Support Sys. Int’l, Inc. v. Mack, 45 F.3d 185 (7th Cir. 1995) (court authority to restrict future filings by vexatious litigants)
- Ramirez v. Secrease, 174 F.3d 198 (5th Cir. 1999) (example of plaintiff’s prior dismissed litigation)