Carter v. New York State
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-05955
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Carter v. New York State, Judge McMahon denied IFP and dismissed without prejudice under the three-strikes rule because no imminent danger was shown.
David Carter’s ability to proceed without prepaying the filing fee and to appeal without paying that fee; the defendants were not subjected to a merits ruling.
What happened
In Carter v. New York State, David Carter, representing himself, alleged that correction officers assaulted him in May 2019. He asked to proceed without paying the filing fee, but the case had been transferred from another federal court.
The court said Carter had already accumulated three qualifying dismissals and therefore could not proceed without paying the fee unless he showed an imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court found that his allegations described a past assault, not an ongoing danger or continuing pattern.
Judge Colleen McMahon denied Carter’s request to proceed without paying the fee and dismissed the complaint without prejudice under the federal three-strikes rule. Carter may start a new action by paying the filing fee, and the court also denied fee-free status for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Carter v. New York State · No. 1:20-cv-05955
- Colleen McMahon
- Aug. 12, 2020
Background
David Carter filed the action without a lawyer and asked to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. He initially filed in the Northern District of New York, which transferred the action to the Southern District of New York. The opinion says Carter was detained at the George R. Vierno Center in the custody of the New York City Department of Correction when the order was issued.
Carter alleged that on May 14, 2019, Correction Officer Morges deliberately pushed him down a stairwell at Great Meadow Correctional Facility and that Correction Officer Melendez helped Morges assault him at the bottom of the stairwell. In discussing the imminent-danger issue, the court referred to the incident as having occurred at Downstate Correctional Facility. The opinion also refers to Carter’s earlier related proceedings without repeating the prior case captions.
Legal standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a detained person who has had three or more earlier federal cases or appeals dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or failing to state a claim generally cannot proceed without paying the filing fee. The exception applies when the complaint alleges an imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court explained that past violence may support this exception if it is part of an ongoing pattern, but an injury or danger that ended before filing does not qualify.
The court concluded that Carter was barred by the three-strikes rule. It found that his allegations concerned a past assault and did not suggest that he then faced imminent danger. The court also noted that Carter was at a different facility when he filed the complaint and that he alleged no continuing pattern of similar acts.
Ruling
Judge Colleen McMahon denied Carter’s request to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice under the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s three-strikes rule and required Carter to prepay the $350 filing fee to proceed with the action. The order states that Carter remains barred from filing future actions without prepaying the fee while in custody unless he faces an imminent threat of serious physical injury. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The order states that Carter may commence a new action by paying the filing fee, after which the complaint would be reviewed under the prisoner-screening statute.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.