Neill v. Rardin

Background

Chase Neill, identified in the order as a federal prisoner, filed a fifteen-count complaint against officials at the Federal Medical Center in Rochester, Minnesota. He generally alleged that the officials violated his right to practice his religion and then retaliated against him by denying due process and failing to provide constitutionally adequate medical care.

Neill filed two applications to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning to proceed without paying the entire court filing fee at the start of the case. The order explains that prisoners who receive this status generally must still pay the filing fee in installments under the Prison Litigation Reform Act.

Three-strikes rule

The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which generally prevents a prisoner with three or more qualifying prior dismissals from proceeding without paying the fee unless the prisoner shows an imminent danger of serious physical injury.

The court identified at least four qualifying prior dismissals involving Neill:

- In a prior case in the District of Kansas, the court dismissed his complaint for failure to state a claim, concluding that the rule from Heck v. Humphrey barred his claims. - In three other prior District of Kansas cases, the courts dismissed his complaints for failure to state a claim.

The court therefore ruled that Neill had to pay the full $405 filing fee unless he established that he faced an imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed this action.

Imminent-danger exception

The court found that none of Neill’s filings, including his eighty-page complaint, alleged specific facts showing an imminent danger of serious physical injury. It characterized his assertion that officials’ refusal to let him practice his religion had harmed his health as conclusory. The court also noted that Neill had been transferred to a residential reentry center and was no longer subject to the conditions underlying his claims.

Ruling and effect

The court denied Neill’s applications to proceed without paying the filing fee. It ordered him to pay the full $405 fee within 21 days. If he does not pay, the court will recommend dismissing the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The order also states that, even if Neill pays the fee and submits a second amended complaint, the complaint will remain subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

This order addressed only Neill’s requests to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront. It did not decide whether his underlying claims against the defendants were legally valid.