Shepherd v. Annucci
921 F.3d 89
2d Cir.2019Background
- Plaintiff Eon Shepherd, a New York inmate, sued prison officials alleging inadequate accommodation and medical care for chronic back pain and claimed placement on unwanted medical "keeplock." He sought in forma pauperis (IFP) status.
- Shepherd's complaint understated his prior federal litigation history, omitting multiple cases that would qualify as "strikes" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
- The Southern District initially granted IFP status provisionally, but after transfer and defendants' submissions (sworn declarations and medical records) the Western District reconsidered and revoked IFP, finding no imminent danger of serious physical injury.
- Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint as a sanction for Shepherd's alleged deliberate omission of three prior strikes; the district court dismissed the action and entered judgment for defendants.
- On appeal Shepherd argued (1) the court erred by considering materials outside the complaint when assessing the § 1915(g) imminent-danger exception, and (2) the court abused its discretion by dismissing as a sanction without adequate notice or consideration of lesser measures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a district court may consider materials beyond the complaint when a defendant challenges a provisional finding of "imminent danger" under § 1915(g) | Shepherd: Court should not rely on extra-pleading materials to revoke IFP | Defendants: Court may conduct a narrow evidentiary inquiry and consider sworn records to rebut imminent-danger claims | Court: District courts may conduct a limited, narrow inquiry and consider evidentiary submissions when defendants challenge a provisional imminent-danger finding |
| Whether Shepherd was in "imminent danger" to qualify for the § 1915(g) exception | Shepherd: Chronic pain, falls, refusal of treatment, and 24-hour keeplock put him at imminent risk | Defendants: Medical declarations/records show aids and treatment were available and that Shepherd refused meds and requested keeplock; allegations are conclusory | Court: Imminent-danger claim was "without foundation"; IFP properly revoked |
| Whether dismissal as a sanction was procedurally improper for lack of notice and opportunity to be heard | Shepherd: Court failed to give adequate notice that dismissal with prejudice was a possible sanction | Defendants: Shepherd was put on notice and given chance to respond | Court: Shepherd received adequate notice and opportunity to respond |
| Whether dismissal with prejudice was an abuse of discretion for failure to consider lesser sanctions | Shepherd: Court did not explicitly consider lesser remedies before dismissal | Defendants: Shepherd's bad faith, litigation experience, and deception justified dismissal | Court: Given Shepherd's deliberate omission, experience, and bad faith, dismissal was not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Polanco v. Hopkins, 510 F.3d 152 (2d Cir.) (standards for reviewing IFP denials)
- Chavis v. Chappius, 618 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2010) (imminent-danger exception is a threshold procedural question; conclusory claims may be rejected)
- Taylor v. Watkins, 623 F.3d 483 (7th Cir. 2010) (district courts may conduct limited factual inquiry into imminent-danger claims)
- Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2007) (courts may probe plausibility but should avoid overly detailed inquiry)
- Makarova v. United States, 201 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2000) (courts may consider evidence outside the pleadings on Rule 12(b)(1) challenges)
- Dorchester Fin. Sec., Inc. v. Banco BRJ, S.A., 722 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2013) (district courts have procedural leeway, including evidentiary hearings, on jurisdictional matters)
- Koehl v. Bernstein, 740 F.3d 860 (2d Cir. 2014) (standard of review for dismissal sanctions)
- Gibbs v. Roman, 116 F.3d 83 (3d Cir. 1997) (limited inquiry into imminent-danger exception permissible)