Valles v. Attorney General of the United States
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-02215
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Valles v. Attorney General, Judge Swain denied IFP status and dismissed the complaint without prejudice under the three-strikes rule.
Andrew Valles’s case was dismissed without prejudice, and his request to proceed without prepaying the filing fee was denied. The order also denied fee-free status for an appeal, while allowing him to file a new complaint and seek that status after he is no longer a prisoner.
What happened
In Valles v. Attorney General of the United States, Andrew Valles, who was incarcerated and had no lawyer, asked to file without paying the filing fee. He challenged the requirement that he register as a sex offender after release from prison.
The court found that Valles had three prior cases dismissed for reasons covered by the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s three-strikes rule. That rule generally prevents a prisoner with three such dismissals from filing without paying unless he faces an immediate danger of serious physical injury. The court concluded that Valles’s allegations did not show that kind of danger because his claimed future harm was not physically described and was speculative.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied Valles’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee and dismissed the complaint without prejudice. The court also denied fee-free status for any appeal, while stating that Valles could file a new complaint and seek fee-free status after he was no longer a prisoner.
The detailed version
- Valles v. Attorney General of the United States · No. 1:25-cv-02215
- Laura Swain
- Mar. 18, 2025
Background
Andrew Valles filed the action while incarcerated at FCI McKean and proceeded without a lawyer. He asked to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), meaning without prepaying the filing fee. His complaint challenged the requirement under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) that he register as a sex offender after his release from prison. The defendants were the Attorney General of the United States and the attorneys general of California, New York, and Utah.
Three-strikes rule
The Prison Litigation Reform Act’s three-strikes provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), generally bars a prisoner from filing a civil action IFP after three prior actions or appeals filed while incarcerated were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or failing to state a claim. The bar does not apply if the prisoner is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court relied on an earlier order determining that Valles had three qualifying strikes.
Imminent-danger exception
The court explained that imminent danger must exist when the complaint is filed. Valles alleged generally that SORNA violated his rights and suggested that he had previously been targeted and sexually assaulted by law-enforcement officers because of sex-offender-registration requirements. He asserted that similar harm was likely in the future. The court found that the choice between complying with SORNA and facing rearrest did not show a risk of physical injury. It also found that the allegations about possible future assaults lacked factual detail showing a continuing or related pattern and were speculative.
Disposition
The court denied Valles’s request to proceed IFP under § 1915(g) and dismissed the complaint without prejudice under the PLRA’s three-strikes rule. The order stated that Valles could file a new complaint and seek IFP status after he was no longer a prisoner for purposes of § 1915(h). The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied IFP status for purposes of an appeal. Judge Laura Taylor Swain directed that judgment enter.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.