751 F. Supp. 2d 59
D.D.C.2010Background
- Plaintiff Ruston, a pro se civil detainee, brought a FOIA action against the United States Secret Service.
- Defendant moved to vacate the order granting IFP status, contending plaintiff is an abusive filer.
- Court previously noted Ruston’s extensive filing history and barred or limited IFP status in numerous cases.
- Court held Ruston is not subject to the PLRA as he was not incarcerated for criminal violations, but may still abuse IFP privileges.
- Court found plaintiff’s allegations in prior cases to be frivolous or conspiratorial and inconsistent with FOIA disclosure obligations.
- Court granted the motion to revoke IFP status, enjoined future IFP filings, and gave 30 days to pay the $350 filing fee per case, with dismissal if not paid.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IFP status may be revoked for abuse | Ruston contends IFP should continue due to status as detainee and lack of PLRA applicability. | Ruston abused IFP through numerous frivolous/vexatious filings; discretion to revoke warranted. | Yes; IFP status revoked due to abuse. |
| Whether Ruston is subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act | Argues PLRA applies given his filings across courts. | PLRA not applicable because Ruston is not imprisoned for criminal reasons (not guilty by reason of insanity). | Not subject to PLRA. |
| Whether the court should require payment of the filing fee and dismiss if not paid | Requests continuation of IFP or relaxation of fee obligation. | Correct to vacate IFP, require fee within 30 days, else dismissal. | Require payment; dismiss if not paid within 30 days. |
| Whether courts may enjoin future IFP filings by the plaintiff | Not addressed; seeks relief under normal procedures. | Court may enjoin ongoing IFP filings given abuse history. | Yes; enjoined from proceeding IFP in future actions. |
| What is the appropriate remedy for the abusive filing history | Possibly seeks relief without fees or with continued access to courts. | Remedial measures include revoking IFP, fee payment, and dismissal of actions. | Vacate IFP, revoke status in pending actions, and dismiss if fees not paid. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ruston v. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 304 Fed.Appx. 666 (10th Cir. 2008) (mental illness context; non-prisoner status under PLRA)
- Butler v. Department of Justice, 492 F.3d 440 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (court may deny IFP to a prisoner who abuses privilege)
- Hurt v. Social Security Administration, 544 F.3d 308 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (three-strike rule applicable to vexatious non-incarcerated litigants)
- Mitchell v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 587 F.3d 415 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (endangerment exception; consideration of filing history in abusiveness)
- Ibrahim v. District of Columbia, 463 F.3d 3 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (endangerment-like reasoning for abuse considerations)