Reynolds v. United States
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-02818
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Reynolds v. United States, Judge Swain denied IFP status and dismissed the complaint without prejudice under the PLRA’s three-strikes rule.
Michael C. Reynolds’s ability to proceed without prepaying the filing fee and this action’s status; the complaint was dismissed without prejudice, while the named federal defendants were not required to litigate the claims in this action.
What happened
In Reynolds v. United States, Michael C. Reynolds, who is incarcerated and represented himself, sued several federal defendants over documents he said were inaccurate. He asked to file without paying the filing fee.
The court found that Reynolds had three earlier qualifying dismissals and therefore could not proceed without paying the fee unless he showed an imminent danger of serious physical injury. His complaint did not show such a danger; it concerned the accuracy of records maintained by two New York towns.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied Reynolds’s request to proceed without paying the fee and dismissed the complaint without prejudice under the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s three-strikes rule. The court also denied fee-free status for any appeal, certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Reynolds v. United States · No. 1:25-cv-02818
- Laura Swain
- Apr. 10, 2025
Background
Michael C. Reynolds, who was incarcerated at Federal Correctional Institution–Schuylkill and proceeded without a lawyer, filed claims under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a. He challenged the accuracy of documents maintained by the towns of North Salem and East Fishkill, New York. Because he did not pay the filing fee, the court treated his filing as a request to proceed without prepaying fees, commonly called in forma pauperis status.
Three-strikes rule
The court stated that Reynolds had previously been barred from filing new actions without prepaying fees while incarcerated under the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s three-strikes rule, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That rule generally prevents an incarcerated person from proceeding without prepaying fees after three earlier federal actions or appeals were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or failing to state a claim, unless the person faced an imminent danger of serious physical injury.
The court identified three earlier dismissals as strikes: Reynolds v. Kosik, No. 4:06-CV-2466 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 18, 2007); Reynolds v. Gurganus, No. 4:06-CV-1753 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 11, 2006); and Reynolds v. Lackawanna Cnty. Prison, No. 4:06-CV-1190 (M.D. Pa. July 7, 2006). The opinion described each dismissal as frivolous.
Imminent danger
The court concluded that Reynolds’s complaint did not show that he faced an imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed it. The court noted that his claims concerned the accuracy of records and that nothing in the complaint suggested a risk of physical injury.
Ruling
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied Reynolds’s request to proceed without prepaying fees and dismissed the complaint without prejudice under the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s three-strikes rule. The court stated that Reynolds could start a new action by paying the filing fees, after which the complaint would be reviewed under the prisoner-screening statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The court directed the clerk to enter judgment.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.