Davis v. Taylor
- Laura Swain
- 1:20-cv-04610
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Davis v. Taylor, Judge Stanton denied William Scott Davis’s fee-waiver request and dismissed the complaint under the prisoner three-strikes rule.
William Scott Davis’s ability to proceed without prepaying the filing fee and to file future actions without prepaying fees while in custody.
What happened
In Davis v. Taylor, William Scott Davis, who was incarcerated and filing without a lawyer, asked to bring his case without paying the filing fee upfront. He alleged that the defendants conspired to defraud him, restricted his association with his aunt, and interfered with an inheritance.
The court said Davis had already accumulated three qualifying dismissals of earlier lawsuits brought while incarcerated. Under the prisoner three-strikes rule, he could not proceed without paying the fee unless his complaint showed that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury. The court found that his allegations did not show such a danger.
Judge Stanton denied Davis’s request to proceed without prepaying the fee, and the complaint was dismissed without prejudice under the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s three-strikes rule. Davis remained barred from filing future lawsuits without prepaying fees while in custody unless he alleged an immediate threat of serious physical injury.
The detailed version
- Davis v. Taylor · No. 1:20-cv-04610
- Laura Swain
- July 8, 2020
Background
William Scott Davis, who was incarcerated at the Administrative U.S. Penitentiary in Thomson, Illinois, brought the action without a lawyer. He asked to proceed without prepaying the filing fee, a status commonly called proceeding without paying fees upfront. His complaint referred to an Article 81 proceeding and alleged that the defendants conspired to defraud him, denied him freedom to associate with his aunt, and interfered with an alleged inheritance. He also requested appointment of a guardian ad litem, meaning a person appointed to represent someone who cannot adequately represent himself or herself.
Three-strikes rule
The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), part of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. That provision generally bars a prisoner from bringing a civil action without prepaying the filing fee after three or more earlier actions or appeals were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a claim, unless the prisoner was under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
The court said Davis had previously been found subject to this bar and that three earlier actions brought while he was incarcerated had been dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court explained that an imminent danger must exist when the complaint is filed and found that Davis’s allegations did not suggest that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury.
Guardian ad litem request
The court declined to consider appointment of a guardian ad litem because the complaint did not suggest that Davis was incompetent to proceed, and the court had no evidence indicating incompetence. The court also noted that Davis’s earlier request for a guardian ad litem in another proceeding had been unsuccessful.
Ruling
The court denied Davis’s request to proceed without prepaying the filing fee and dismissed the complaint without prejudice under the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s three-strikes rule. The court stated that Davis remained barred from filing future actions without prepaying the filing fee while in custody unless he was under an imminent threat of serious physical injury. The order also stated that he could start a new action by paying the filing fee, which would then be subject to prisoner-complaint screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.