Young v. Sickler
3:17-cv-01548
N.D. Tex.Aug 8, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Timothy Doyle Young, a federal inmate in Colorado, brought a pro se civil rights action against BOP Regional Counsel Jason Sickler and the Department of Justice.
- Plaintiff did not pay the $400 filing fee and sought to proceed in forma pauperis.
- Court screening was performed under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Special Order 3.
- Young has three prior federal civil actions dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim, constituting three "strikes" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
- Plaintiff alleged Sickler failed to provide a copy of his Hepatitis C test but did not allege facts showing "imminent danger of serious physical injury."
- Magistrate Judge recommended denying in forma pauperis status under § 1915(g) and dismissing the action unless the $400 fee is paid within 14 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Young may proceed IFP under § 1915(g) despite three prior dismissals | Young alleges denial of Hepatitis C test copy; contends claim merits IFP review | Defendants rely on Young's three prior dismissals to bar IFP status under § 1915(g) | Court: Young has three strikes; § 1915(g) bars IFP absent imminent danger; Young did not show imminent danger; deny IFP |
| Whether complaint alleges imminent danger of serious physical injury (exception to § 1915(g)) | Asserts withholding of Hep C test places him at risk | No evidence of imminent danger from withholding test; procedural bar applies | Court: No plausible imminent-danger allegation; exception not met |
| Whether case should be dismissed or allowed if fee paid | Implied request to proceed without fee | If fee paid, case may proceed on merits | Court: Dismiss unless Young tenders $400 filing fee within 14 days |
| Procedure for objections and appeal | N/A | N/A | Magistrate instructed parties may file specific written objections within 14 days to district court under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Johnson, 475 F.3d 261 (5th Cir.) (discusses application of § 1915(g) three-strikes rule)
- Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383 (5th Cir.) (explains three-strikes bar to IFP relief)
- Banos v. O'Guin, 144 F.3d 883 (5th Cir.) (emphasizes that imminent-danger must be alleged at time of filing to avoid § 1915(g) bar)
- Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir.) (explains requirements and effect of objections to magistrate judge recommendations)