Scott v. Lucas
2:20-cv-01620
E.D. Wis.Oct 29, 2020Background
- Plaintiff Demetric Scott, a detainee at the Milwaukee Secure Detention Facility, filed a §1983 complaint alleging unconstitutional jail conditions and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs while at Milwaukee County Jail.
- Scott moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP).
- Court records show Scott has four prior federal actions dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim.
- Under 28 U.S.C. §1915(g) a prisoner with three or more such dismissals cannot proceed IFP unless facing imminent danger of serious physical injury.
- Scott was no longer held at the Milwaukee County Jail and his allegations described past harm.
- The court denied IFP, ordered Scott to pay the $400 filing fee within 14 days (by Nov. 13, 2020), and warned the case would be dismissed if he failed to pay; if paid, the complaint would be screened under §1915A.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Application of PLRA three-strikes bar (28 U.S.C. §1915(g)) | Scott seeks IFP to proceed without prepaying fees | Court records show Scott has at least three prior dismissals (four total) qualifying as strikes | Court finds Scott has four strikes and is subject to §1915(g); IFP denied |
| Imminent danger exception to §1915(g) | Scott alleges unconstitutional conditions and deliberate indifference (seeking to invoke imminent-danger exception) | Allegations describe past harm and Scott is no longer at the facility, so danger is not imminent | Court holds allegations are past harm and do not satisfy imminent-danger exception; exception not met |
Key Cases Cited
- Evans v. Illinois Department of Corrections, 150 F.3d 810 (7th Cir. 1998) (defining that prior dismissals before or after PLRA count as strikes)
- Abdul-Wadood v. Nathan, 91 F.3d 1023 (7th Cir. 1996) (strikes include dismissals for frivolousness or failure to state a claim)
- Ciarpaglini v. Saini, 352 F.3d 328 (7th Cir. 2003) (imminent danger requires real, proximate, ongoing threat at filing)
- Lewis v. Sullivan, 279 F.3d 526 (7th Cir. 2002) (imminent-danger standard elaborated)
- Heimermann v. Litscher, 337 F.3d 781 (7th Cir. 2003) (allegations of past harm do not satisfy imminent-danger exception)
- Newlin v. Helman, 123 F.3d 429 (7th Cir. 1997) (procedure for collecting filing fee when IFP denied)
- Walker v. O’Brien, 216 F.3d 626 (7th Cir. 2000) (procedural authority cited regarding fee/payment procedures)
- Lee v. Clinton, 209 F.3d 1025 (7th Cir. 2000) (procedural authority on fee payment and dismissal)