Trotman v. Warden of DOC NYC

Background

David M. Trotman, who was incarcerated at the George R. Vierno Center on Rikers Island and was representing himself, originally filed this action in the Eastern District of New York. That court ruled that he had three prior qualifying dismissals, sometimes called “strikes,” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That statute generally prevents a prisoner with three such strikes from bringing a civil action without prepaying the filing fee unless the prisoner faces imminent danger of serious physical injury. The Eastern District court gave Trotman 30 days to prepay the filing fee and later transferred the action to the Southern District of New York.

Trotman sought reconsideration based on the imminent-danger exception. The court allowed him to amend his complaint, and his amended complaint became the operative pleading. He also submitted a proposed order seeking a preliminary injunction to stop the defendants from confining him based on allegedly false reports and from writing false reports.

Rule 60(b) motion

The court treated Trotman’s reconsideration request as a motion for relief from an order under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court concluded that Trotman had not shown that any of the grounds in Rule 60(b)(1) through (5)—such as mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud, or a void judgment—applied. The court therefore denied the motion under those provisions.

The court also denied relief under Rule 60(b)(6), which permits relief for another reason that justifies it in extraordinary circumstances. The court determined that Trotman had not shown such circumstances because he did not establish that the imminent-danger exception applied.

Imminent-danger analysis

The amended complaint described several incidents at different Department of Correction facilities. Trotman alleged that other incarcerated people assaulted him after he was released from protective custody, that a correction officer used chemical spray during an inmate altercation, that he was illegally strip searched, and that an officer made a false report about him. He also alleged that he had previously found raw feces or saliva in his cereal, but the court noted that he did not allege facts showing that any defendant caused or participated in that food contamination.

The court concluded that these allegations concerned past incidents at different facilities that appeared unrelated. Trotman did not allege that the incidents were continuing or part of an ongoing pattern, and he did not allege facts showing a particular risk of imminent physical harm at the George R. Vierno Center. The court therefore held that the imminent-danger exception did not apply and that the earlier three-strikes order remained in effect.

Disposition

The court denied Trotman’s motion for reconsideration. It also denied his application to proceed without prepaying the filing fee under Section 1915(g), because he had three strikes and the imminent-danger exception did not apply. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment dismissing the action without prejudice. The court stated that Trotman could file a new action after prepaying the $405 filing fee, and that a future request to proceed without prepaying the fee would need to include facts showing a specific imminent danger, a connection to unlawful conduct alleged in the complaint, and a remedy that could address the injury. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal.