Stuckey v. People Republic of China
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:20-cv-07344
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Stuckey v. People’s Republic of China, Judge Rogers dismissed Andre Kenneth Stuckey’s case after finding he could not proceed without prepaying fees under the three-strikes rule.
Andre Kenneth Stuckey, whose requests to proceed without prepaying the filing fee were denied and whose case was dismissed; the additional named plaintiffs had previously been dismissed without prejudice.
What happened
In Stuckey v. People’s Republic of China, Andre Kenneth Stuckey, a state prisoner, filed a case seeking damages and other relief related to the coronavirus pandemic. He attempted to represent other incarcerated people as part of a proposed class, but the court previously denied class certification and dismissed the additional plaintiffs without prejudice.
Stuckey asked to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. The court found that he had three earlier cases dismissed for reasons that count as “strikes” under the prisoner three-strikes rule. The court also found that he had not plausibly shown he faced an ongoing danger of serious physical injury when he filed this case.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers dismissed the case under that rule, denied Stuckey’s requests to proceed without prepaying fees, struck his amended complaint, terminated the remaining pending motion as moot, and closed the file. The order stated that he could bring his claims in a new case if he paid the filing fee.
The detailed version
- Stuckey v. People Republic of China · No. 4:20-cv-07344
- Yvonne Rogers
- July 12, 2021
Background
Andre Kenneth Stuckey filed a pro se prisoner class-action complaint seeking damages and equitable relief related to the coronavirus pandemic. He claimed to sue the People’s Republic of China and related government entities and officials. The proposed class included incarcerated people in California. The court had previously denied class certification and dismissed the additional named plaintiffs without prejudice.
Stuckey filed requests to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without prepaying the filing fee, and filed an amended complaint. The court issued an order requiring him to explain why the case should not be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), commonly called the prisoner “three-strikes” rule.
Three-strikes finding
Section 1915(g) generally prevents a prisoner from proceeding without prepaying the filing fee after three prior federal actions or appeals were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim, unless the prisoner plausibly shows an imminent danger of serious physical injury.
The court found that three of Stuckey’s earlier cases qualified as strikes. Stuckey acknowledged that the cases had been dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim, but argued that two should not count because they involved the same operative facts. The court rejected that argument, explaining that the statute contains no exception for duplicate litigation and that the three-strikes rule applies regardless of whether a claim was well pleaded or brought in good faith.
Imminent-danger exception
The court considered whether Stuckey qualified for the exception allowing a three-strikes prisoner to proceed without prepaying fees. Stuckey alleged that, when he filed the case, he had been infected with or exposed to COVID-19, denied various forms of care, denied access to religious services and visitation, and subjected to disruption, fear, emotional distress, and physical injuries.
The court found these allegations conclusory. It emphasized that Stuckey was not suing prison officials for conditions of confinement; instead, he named the People’s Republic of China and related entities and officials. The court concluded that he had not shown that any named defendant’s alleged actions placed him in imminent danger of serious physical injury or subjected him to an ongoing danger when he filed the complaint or amended complaint.
Disposition
The court found that Stuckey had not shown cause why the three-strikes rule should not apply. It dismissed the case, denied his requests to proceed in forma pauperis, struck the amended complaint, terminated the remaining pending motion as moot, and closed the file. The order stated that Stuckey could pursue his claims in a new case if he paid the filing fee.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.