Hines v. State of Minnesota
- John Tunheim
- 0:23-cv-00604
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 6
In Hines v. State of Minnesota, Judge Tunheim denied Hines’s appeal, affirmed the fee-waiver denial, and required payment under the three-strikes rule.
Frederick Dewayne Hines’s ability to continue his civil-rights case without prepaying the filing fee; the underlying claims were not decided in this order.
What happened
In Hines v. State of Minnesota, Frederick Dewayne Hines, who represented himself, sued prison officials over alleged civil-rights violations, including sexual abuse, inadequate medical care, and lost or stolen property. He asked to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront.
A magistrate judge found that Hines had three prior qualifying dismissals under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Hines argued that an exception applied because he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury from repeated sexual abuse and inadequate medical treatment.
Judge John R. Tunheim found no clear error in denying Hines permission to proceed without prepaying fees because past injuries and hypothetical future injuries did not satisfy the imminent-danger exception. The court denied Hines’s appeal, affirmed the magistrate judge’s order, and gave him 60 days to pay the $402 filing fee or face dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
The detailed version
- Hines v. State of Minnesota · No. 0:23-cv-00604
- John Tunheim
- June 26, 2023
Background
Frederick Dewayne Hines, who was incarcerated and represented himself, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against various prison officials. He alleged that he was raped on or about August 7, 2020; that prison officials and medical professionals failed to follow proper procedures and denied him proper medical care; and that prison officials lost or stole his personal property. Hines applied to proceed without prepaying the filing fee.
Magistrate Judge’s Decision
Magistrate Judge John Docherty denied Hines’s application under the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s three-strikes provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That provision generally bars a prisoner who has had three prior qualifying cases or appeals dismissed from proceeding without prepaying fees, unless the prisoner faces an imminent danger of serious physical injury.
The magistrate judge found that Hines had three qualifying prior dismissals in the District of Minnesota. The magistrate judge also found that Hines had not shown an imminent danger because his allegations involved a rape that occurred several years earlier and appeared not to involve conditions to which he remained subject.
District Court’s Review
Judge John R. Tunheim reviewed the magistrate judge’s decision for clear error or inconsistency with the law. Hines did not challenge the findings that the three-strikes provision applied to him and that he had three qualifying strikes. He challenged only the finding that he had not shown imminent danger of serious physical injury.
The court held that a past injury does not satisfy the imminent-danger exception. It also held that possible future medical injuries based on past harms were not sufficiently definite and likely to establish an imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court therefore found no clear error in the magistrate judge’s decision.
Order and Effect
The court denied Hines’s appeal and affirmed the magistrate judge’s April 13, 2023 order denying his application to proceed without prepaying fees. The court did not state that Hines’s underlying lawsuit was barred. Instead, it ordered him to pay the full $402 filing fee within 60 days of the order. The order states that the action will be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute if he does not pay the fee.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.