DeBlasio v. Williams
- Katherine Failla
- 1:19-cv-00201
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In DeBlasio v. Williams, Judge Failla dismissed DeBlasio’s complaint because three prior dismissals barred fee-free filing and no imminent-danger exception applied.
The ruling affected Philip E. DeBlasio’s federal civil action against Doctor Williams, Correctional Officer Simon, and two unidentified correction officers. It ended the case based on the prisoner filing-fee restriction and the absence of a qualifying imminent-danger allegation, without deciding the underlying claims.
What happened
In DeBlasio v. Williams, Philip E. DeBlasio, representing himself, alleged that correction officers and a doctor at Rikers Island harassed him and that an inmate then attacked him. He sought an end to the CAPS program, restrictions on the defendants’ work, and $3 million in damages.
The court found that DeBlasio had at least three prior qualifying dismissals, or “strikes,” under a federal law that generally prevents prisoners with three strikes from filing cases without paying fees. The court also found that his allegations described a past attack and broad concerns about inmate violence, not a specific and ongoing danger when he filed this case.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla dismissed the complaint, directed the Clerk to terminate pending motions and remaining dates, and closed the case. The opinion did not decide whether the alleged harassment or attack violated the law.
The detailed version
- DeBlasio v. Williams · No. 1:19-cv-00201
- Katherine Failla
- July 28, 2020
Background
Philip E. DeBlasio filed the complaint without a lawyer on January 8, 2019, and applied to proceed without paying the filing fee. He alleged that, on December 21, 2018, Correctional Officer Simon verbally harassed him while he was in the Clinical Alternative to Punitive Segregation program at the Anna M. Kross Center on Rikers Island. According to the complaint, Doctor Williams and two unidentified correction officers were also present. DeBlasio alleged that the officers harassed him about an earlier inmate attack that had caused several injuries.
DeBlasio alleged that he complained to Doctor Williams, who told him to “man up.” DeBlasio said he then became extremely upset and threw garbage and other objects. He alleged that one unidentified officer told another inmate to attack him, and that the inmate punched him in the back of the head and face several times. DeBlasio also alleged that the administration supported inmate violence and that he needed help. He requested termination of the CAPS program, an order preventing the named correction officers from working with mental-health patients, and $3 million in damages.
The court had granted DeBlasio permission to proceed without paying the filing fee. Doctor Williams and Officer Simon later notified the court that they intended to seek revocation of that permission and dismissal of the complaint. The court ordered DeBlasio to respond, but he did not do so. The court stayed discovery while addressing the anticipated motion.
Legal Standard
The Prison Litigation Reform Act’s “three-strikes” rule generally prevents a prisoner from bringing a civil action without paying the filing fee if the prisoner previously brought at least three federal actions or appeals while incarcerated that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim. The exception applies when the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
The court explained that prior dismissals for failure to state a claim count as strikes even when those dismissals were not final bars to refiling. Courts may examine docket sheets when they clearly show that prior cases were dismissed on a qualifying ground. To use the imminent-danger exception, a prisoner must allege a specific danger that existed when the complaint was filed, was fairly traceable to the challenged conduct, and could be addressed by a favorable court decision. A past incident, without allegations that the danger was ongoing or likely to continue, is not enough.
Court’s Analysis
The court concluded that DeBlasio had accumulated at least three strikes based on earlier federal cases and an earlier appeal. The court stated that the relevant dockets clearly showed at least three dismissals for failure to state a claim.
The court then considered the imminent-danger exception even though DeBlasio had not responded to the defendants’ request. It found that the complaint did not allege an ongoing, imminent danger involving the people connected to the December 2018 incident. The court also found that DeBlasio’s broader allegations about “inmate policing” and correction officers were too general and did not identify who posed a threat or explain specifically how future harm was likely. Reading the complaint liberally because DeBlasio was representing himself, the court still found no specific future danger.
Disposition
The court dismissed the complaint. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate all pending motions, adjourn all remaining dates, and close the case. The opinion does not state that the court separately granted or denied a motion to revoke DeBlasio’s permission to proceed without paying the filing fee, and it does not address the underlying merits of his allegations.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.