McElroy v. Department of Corrections
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:25-cv-00314
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In McElroy v. Department of Corrections, Judge Gilliam denied fee-waiver status under the three-strikes rule and required full payment to continue.
Latwahn J. McElroy, who must prepay the full filing and administrative fees to continue the action; the case may be dismissed without prejudice if he does not pay within 28 days.
What happened
Latwahn J. McElroy, an incarcerated person representing himself, filed a civil-rights case against the Department of Corrections and others and asked to proceed without paying the fees upfront. The court had previously found that he had seven cases that counted as strikes under the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
McElroy argued that an exception applied because he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the case. He described alleged problems involving medical care, water, housing, mail, and other conditions, but the court found his allegations too vague and unsupported to plausibly show that danger at the time of filing.
In McElroy v. Department of Corrections, Judge Haywood Gilliam denied permission to proceed without paying the fees and required McElroy to pay the $350 filing fee and $55 administrative fee within 28 days. If he does not pay, the court will dismiss the case without prejudice, allowing him to refile after paying the fees.
The detailed version
- McElroy v. Department of Corrections · No. 4:25-cv-00314
- Haywood Gilliam
- Apr. 16, 2025
Background
Latwahn J. McElroy filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and asked to proceed without prepaying the filing fees. The court had ordered him to explain why the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s three-strikes rule should not bar that request. McElroy responded that he qualified for the exception for prisoners facing imminent danger of serious physical injury.
Court’s analysis
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner generally may not proceed without prepaying fees if the prisoner has had three or more federal cases dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a claim. The court stated that it had previously found seven of McElroy’s cases qualified as strikes.
The court then considered whether McElroy plausibly alleged imminent danger when he filed this case on January 7, 2025. The complaint described more than thirty defendants and numerous unrelated allegations, including allegedly tainted or unavailable water, an inoperable toilet, lack of hot water, medical-care concerns, administrative segregation, limits on mail and legal resources, problems involving religious meals, and other conditions. The court found the allegations rambling, incoherent, vague, or unsupported as a basis for the imminent-danger exception.
McElroy’s response raised additional concerns about medical care, mail, access to legal resources, accommodations, and a possible transfer. The court found it unclear what medical condition he had, what treatment he needed, which defendant denied it, why a transfer was required, or how the alleged treatment and mail problems created an imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court emphasized that the relevant question was the danger existing when the complaint was filed, not conditions at an earlier or later time.
Ruling
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. denied McElroy leave to proceed without prepaying fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and denied the claimed imminent-danger exception. The court ordered him to pay the $350 filing fee and $55 administrative fee in full within 28 days of the order. The court stated that if the fees were not received by that deadline, it would dismiss the action without prejudice to refiling upon payment of the full fees. The order terminated the motions identified as Docket Nos. 2 and 19.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.