Sanchez v. Howard

Background

Carlos Sanchez, who is incarcerated at Woodbourne Correctional Facility and is proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against David Howard, Danielle Glebocki, Allison Pabon, C.O. Leal, and C.O. McKenzie. The complaint asserted claims under the First and Eighth Amendments, including failure to protect, retaliation, sexual assault, denial of medical treatment, unconstitutional conditions of confinement, unequal protection, and interference with legal mail.

Sanchez alleged that C.O. Leal harassed her, sometimes prevented her from accessing a bathroom, hormone pills, food, and packages, sexually assaulted her, and threatened her to discourage complaints. She also alleged that she wrote to supervisory officials about these and other issues without receiving adequate responses. In particular, Sanchez alleged that Glebocki said she would try to force Sanchez to move to a general-population housing block, where Sanchez believed her life would be in danger.

Before the court was Sanchez’s application to proceed without paying the filing fees. The action had originally been filed in the Northern District of New York and was transferred to the Southern District of New York.

Legal standard

The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which generally prevents a prisoner from proceeding without paying fees after three or more prior cases or appeals were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim. An exception applies if the complaint shows that the prisoner faced an imminent danger of serious physical injury when the action was filed. The court explained that the danger must exist at filing, involve a serious physical injury, and be supported by allegations that are not merely conclusory or implausible.

Analysis

The court determined that Sanchez had acquired at least three qualifying prior dismissals before filing this action. The court therefore considered whether the complaint showed an imminent danger of serious physical injury.

The court concluded that allegations concerning Leal’s alleged harassment and the supervisory defendants’ responses described past events and did not show an imminent danger when the complaint was filed. The court separately considered the alleged future danger from a possible transfer to general population. It found that Sanchez did not clearly allege that Glebocki was taking steps to make the transfer happen. It also found the allegations too general because Sanchez relied on statements that general-population prisoners were homophobic and gang members, without providing specific facts showing that an attack was imminent.

The court characterized the alleged future harm as speculation that a different inmate might attack Sanchez after a possible transfer. It held that these allegations did not satisfy the imminent-danger exception.

Disposition

The court ruled that Sanchez was barred from proceeding without paying the fees. It granted Sanchez 30 days from the date of the order to pay $405, consisting of a $350 filing fee and a $55 administrative fee. If she did not pay within that period, the Clerk of Court was directed to close the case. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.

The order addressed only Sanchez’s ability to proceed without paying fees; it did not decide the underlying civil-rights claims.