Weston v. Petes

Background

Anthony Weston, an incarcerated plaintiff, filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning to proceed without paying the entire court filing fee at the start of the case. He alleges that St. Louis County jail officials violated several constitutional rights. His amended complaint also asserts medical-negligence claims.

Because Weston is a prisoner, the application was governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1915, including the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Under § 1915(g), commonly called the “three strikes” rule, a prisoner who has had three earlier federal actions or appeals dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim generally cannot proceed in forma pauperis unless the prisoner shows an imminent danger of serious physical injury.

The Court’s Analysis

The court found that Weston had at least three qualifying prior dismissals:

- In a prior related proceeding, the court dismissed his complaint without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to state a claim. - In another prior related proceeding, the court recommended dismissal without prejudice for failure to state a plausible claim for relief, and the district judge adopted that recommendation. - In a third prior related proceeding, the court recommended dismissal without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and the district judge adopted that recommendation.

The court concluded that these proceedings counted as three strikes under § 1915(g). It therefore considered whether Weston qualified for the exception based on an imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court explained that the danger must exist when the complaint is filed, and that general or conclusory assertions are not enough.

Although Weston’s amended complaint asserted medical negligence, the court said he provided no facts describing what was negligent about the medical care he was or was not receiving. The court also found that none of his pleadings described facts supporting a reasonable inference that he faced any physical injury, imminent or otherwise. It concluded that he had not established the required exception.

Ruling and Effect

The court denied Weston’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. It ordered him to pay the full $405 filing fee by June 27, 2025. If he does not pay, the court will recommend that the action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

The court did not rule on whether Weston’s amended complaint states a legally viable claim. It stated that the complaint will still be reviewed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A if he pays the filing fee, and that the action could later be dismissed if the complaint does not state a claim. Judge Dulce J. Foster signed the order.