Canada v. State of Minnesota

Background

Shawn Canada, an incarcerated person representing himself, sued the State of Minnesota and various prison officials and staff. He alleged civil-rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment. His 186-page complaint alleged that the defendants withheld information about his mental health from the court and caused him to lose more than 25 jobs. He sought money damages for alleged harms including an extension of his incarceration, prior arrests, housing problems, loss of unemployment benefits, and loss of food assistance.

Canada applied to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the filing fee at the outset. Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty denied the application. The magistrate judge determined that Canada had filed three earlier actions in the District of Minnesota that qualified as “strikes” under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996.

Issue and standard of review

The issue was whether Canada qualified for the imminent-danger exception to the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s three-strikes rule. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has had three prior federal actions dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim generally may not proceed without paying the filing fee in advance. The exception applies when the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.

The district court reviewed the magistrate judge’s nondispositive order for clear error or a ruling contrary to law. The court also stated that filings by a self-represented litigant are read liberally, but self-represented litigants must still comply with substantive and procedural law.

Court’s analysis

Canada acknowledged that the three-strikes rule applied to him. He challenged only the finding that the imminent-danger exception did not apply, asserting that he was at risk of suffering more physical injuries in the immediate future.

The court relied on Eighth Circuit law stating that the danger must exist when the complaint is filed. A general assertion of danger is not enough; the complaint must contain specific facts showing ongoing serious physical injury or a pattern of misconduct indicating a likelihood of imminent serious physical injury. The court found that Canada’s allegation was only a general assertion and lacked the required specific facts.

Disposition

The court found no clear error in the magistrate judge’s determination that the three-strikes rule barred Canada from proceeding without paying the filing fee. It denied Canada’s appeal and affirmed the magistrate judge’s September 6, 2023 order denying Canada’s application. The court ordered Canada to pay the full $402 filing fee within 60 days of the order. The court stated that failure to pay would result in dismissal of the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The order did not decide the merits of Canada’s civil-rights claims.