Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 11, 2021

Tapp v. Doe

Judge
Colleen McMahon
Docket
1:21-cv-00138
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Tapp v. Doe, Judge McMahon dismissed the complaint without prejudice because Tapp had three strikes and showed no imminent danger.

Who this affects

Sean E. Tapp cannot proceed with this action without prepaying the filing fee; the complaint was dismissed without prejudice, and the opinion states that he remains barred from proceeding without payment in future actions while in custody unless the imminent-danger exception applies.

What happened

In Tapp v. Doe, Sean E. Tapp, who was incarcerated and representing himself, sued Justice John or Jane Doe for $450 million in damages. He had not paid the filing fee.

The court said federal law bars an incarcerated person with at least three prior cases dismissed for certain improper reasons from proceeding without paying the fee, unless the person faces an immediate danger of serious physical injury. Tapp’s complaint did not show such a danger.

Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the complaint without prejudice under the three-strikes rule. Tapp may bring a new action by paying the filing fee, but the court denied permission to appeal without paying that fee.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Tapp v. Doe · No. 1:21-cv-00138
Judge
Colleen McMahon
Date
Jan. 11, 2021

Background

Sean E. Tapp, who was incarcerated at Five Points Correctional Facility in Seneca County, New York, filed this civil action without a lawyer against Justice John or Jane Doe. He sought $450 million in damages and did not prepay the filing fee.

Three-strikes rule

The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), part of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. That provision generally prevents an incarcerated person from bringing a civil action without prepaying the filing fee when the person has had three or more prior federal actions or appeals dismissed because they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a legal claim. The exception applies when the person is under an imminent danger of serious physical injury.

The court relied on prior related proceedings in concluding that Tapp had already accumulated at least three qualifying dismissals. It also found that Tapp’s complaint did not show an imminent danger existing when he filed it. The opinion states that Tapp sued the judge who presided over his criminal proceedings and sought damages, but it did not reach the merits of those claims.

Ruling

Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the complaint without prejudice under the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s three-strikes rule. The opinion states that Tapp may start a new action by paying the filing fee; that action would be screened under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Tapp remains barred from filing future actions without paying the fee while in custody unless he is under an imminent threat of serious physical injury. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the fee.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.