Hines v. State of Minnesota

Background

Frederick Dewayne Hines, who was incarcerated and represented himself, sued the State of Minnesota and various prison officials, asserting civil-rights violations. The case concerned Hines’s allegation that defendants altered and concealed portions of filings in an earlier case. Hines sought injunctive relief—an order requiring defendants to stop tampering with his legal filings—and applied to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without prepaying the filing fee.

In the earlier case, the court had found that Hines had accumulated three “strikes” under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner with three qualifying prior cases generally may not proceed without prepaying fees unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. The magistrate judge found that Hines had three strikes and that the requested injunction about legal filings did not have a sufficient connection to the alleged imminent danger.

Court’s analysis

The district court reviewed Hines’s challenge to the magistrate judge’s denial of his fee application for clear error or a legal mistake. Hines did not challenge the finding that the three-strikes rule applied to him or the finding that he had three qualifying strikes. He argued instead that the imminent-danger exception applied because he had been unable to seek legal relief for alleged sexual abuse and inadequate medical treatment while incarcerated.

The court found no clear error. It explained that the imminent-danger exception requires specific allegations of an ongoing serious physical injury or a pattern of misconduct showing a likelihood of imminent serious physical injury. It also requires a strong connection between the danger and the lawsuit, such that the requested relief could prevent or remedy the danger. The court concluded that an order preventing defendants from altering Hines’s legal filings would not change his medical condition or cure the danger he alleged. The court therefore concluded that Hines could not proceed without prepaying the filing fee under § 1915(g).

Disposition

The court denied Hines’s motion in opposition to the magistrate judge’s order, affirmed the magistrate judge’s order denying his application to proceed without prepaying fees, and rejected the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The court gave Hines 60 days from the date of the order to pay the full $402 filing fee. If he failed to pay within that period, the action would be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The order did not decide the merits of Hines’s underlying civil-rights allegations.