Fleming v. United States Department of Justice
- Susan Nelson
- 0:19-cv-02713
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Fleming v. United States Department of Justice, Judge Nelson denied Fleming’s second motion to reopen her dismissed lawsuit because she did not qualify for fee-waiver status.
Rhonda Fleming, who represented herself, was denied reopening of her previously dismissed civil case and the related requests for fee-waiver status, appointed counsel, amendment of her complaint, and transfer of venue.
What was alleged
The complaint alleges a pattern of sexual harassment and sexual assault of female federal inmates by Bureau of Prisons employees across multiple facilities, and claims the Department of Justice has failed to prevent or adequately punish such conduct. The plaintiff alleges she was personally subjected to sexual assault and physical abuse at three separate federal facilities, including incidents in 2015, 2017, and 2018, and that she was subsequently held in a Special Housing Unit in retaliation for reporting the abuse. The complaint also alleges denial of medical and mental health care, denial of basic hygiene items, and ongoing harassment and intimidation. The plaintiff seeks relief on behalf of all similarly situated female federal inmates, with a jury trial demanded.
What happened
In Fleming v. United States Department of Justice, Rhonda Fleming asked the court to reopen her previously dismissed lawsuit. She cited allegations of abuse and retaliation at the prison where she was then housed and requested several forms of relief, including appointed counsel and permission to amend her complaint.
The court had previously ruled that Fleming could not proceed without paying the filing fee because she did not meet the exception to the prisoner three-lawsuit rule. The court said her current allegations did not provide the required connection to the claims in her earlier lawsuit, which involved a facility where she no longer was housed.
The court denied the second motion to reopen. Judge Susan Richard Nelson also rejected Fleming’s requests to restore her fee-waiver status, appoint counsel, allow an amended complaint, and transfer the case.
The detailed version
- Fleming v. United States Department of Justice · No. 0:19-cv-02713
- Susan Nelson
- Sept. 22, 2023
Background
Rhonda Fleming, who represented herself, filed this civil action against the United States Department of Justice and other defendants. In an earlier order, the court dismissed the action without prejudice and dismissed all defendants except Lieutenant Riehm and six unidentified Bureau of Prisons correctional officers at FCI-Waseca.
Fleming had asked to proceed without paying the filing fee, a status commonly called in forma pauperis, or IFP. The court previously determined that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), known as the prisoner “three-strikes” rule, barred her from proceeding without paying the fee. That rule generally prevents a prisoner from proceeding without paying the fee after three or more qualifying cases have been dismissed, unless the prisoner shows an imminent danger of serious physical injury. Because Fleming had not paid the required filing fee, the court dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
Fleming previously moved to reopen the case after George Floyd’s death, but the court denied that motion. In her second motion, she relied on a proposed class action involving allegations of sexual abuse, harassment, and retaliation against women incarcerated at FCI-Dublin, where she was then housed. Fleming stated that after speaking with the Federal Bureau of Investigation about that lawsuit, a correctional officer threatened to deny her food and that she feared further retaliation. She asked the court to reopen the case, restore her IFP status, appoint counsel, permit an amended complaint, and transfer the case to the District of Columbia.
Court’s reasoning
The court held that Fleming still had not shown that the imminent-danger exception to § 1915(g) applied. The court explained that the danger must involve continuing or future injury and must be connected to the claims in the pleading. Because Fleming had long been absent from the facility involved in her lawsuit, the court had previously found that she had no reason to fear injury from those defendants. The court again stated that a generalized danger from unrelated people at other facilities was insufficient.
The court acknowledged the serious allegations made by other incarcerated people but concluded that those allegations did not provide a legal basis for reopening Fleming’s lawsuit or granting her other requested relief.
Disposition
The court ordered that Fleming’s Second Motion to Reopen the Case was DENIED. The opinion did not grant any of her requests to restore IFP status, appoint counsel, amend the complaint, or transfer venue. This order addressed the request to reopen the previously dismissed case and did not decide the underlying allegations on their merits.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.