Murray v. C.O. John Doe
- James Oetken
- 1:22-cv-00973
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Murray v. C.O. John Doe, Judge Oetken denied the City’s motion to revoke Murray’s filing-fee waiver because the imminent-danger exception applied.
Robert Murray and the City of New York; the ruling allows Murray to retain his filing-fee waiver in this case and lifts the stay.
What happened
In Murray v. C.O. John Doe, the City of New York asked the court to revoke Robert Murray’s waiver of the filing fee. The court had stayed the case while another judge considered whether Murray had accumulated three qualifying dismissals under the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
Judge Oetken agreed that Murray had at least three such dismissals, but found that his complaint adequately alleged he faced an immediate risk of serious physical injury when he filed it. Murray alleged that officers had beaten him, that he was left wheelchair-bound, and that he continued to suffer unsafe and retaliatory conditions.
Judge Oetken denied the City’s motion to revoke Murray’s filing-fee waiver and directed the Clerk of Court to lift the stay. The court also directed that a copy of the order be mailed to Murray and requested that Cynthia Turnipseed update her address if she wanted to receive future court mailings.
The detailed version
- Murray v. C.O. John Doe · No. 1:22-cv-00973
- James Oetken
- May 20, 2025
Background
The court had stayed this case while the City of New York pursued revocation of Robert Murray’s in forma pauperis (IFP) status, meaning his permission to proceed without paying the filing fee. In a separate pending case, a magistrate judge recommended granting the City’s motion after finding that Murray had filed more than three cases dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim. A district judge adopted that recommendation and revoked Murray’s IFP status in that case.
The City then asked the court in this case to take judicial notice of that assessment and revoke Murray’s IFP status here as well. Magistrate Judge Stein gave Murray one month to respond, but Murray did not respond.
Court’s Analysis
The Prison Litigation Reform Act generally prevents a prisoner who has accumulated at least three qualifying dismissals—often called “three strikes”—from proceeding without paying the filing fee. The statute contains an exception when the prisoner alleges that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed.
The court agreed that Murray had accumulated at least three strikes. It nevertheless found that the exception applied. Murray alleged that officers had beaten him, leaving him wheelchair-bound at some point between January 2 and January 27, 2022. He filed the complaint shortly after those alleged events. He also alleged continuing harm, including living on a cell floor, not having showered for weeks, and officers interfering with his food in retaliation for filing the lawsuit. Considering the special consideration given to a self-represented litigant, the court held that these allegations adequately described imminent danger at the time of filing.
Ruling
Judge J. Paul Oetken denied the City’s motion to revoke Murray’s IFP status. The Clerk of Court was directed to lift the stay in the case and mail the order to Murray and to his agent, Cynthia Turnipseed. Turnipseed was asked to update her address on the docket if she wished to receive future mailings.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.