Heffley v. FCI Otisville
- Louis Stanton
- 1:20-cv-05811
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Heffley v. FCI Otisville, Judge Stanton ordered Travis Heffley to explain why his fee waiver should not be denied under the three-strikes rule.
Travis Heffley, who was incarcerated and represented himself, must respond within 30 days to avoid the conditional consequences described in the order. The order also concerns his ability to file future federal actions without prepaying fees while he is incarcerated.
What happened
Travis Heffley, who was incarcerated and representing himself, sued FCI Otisville over alleged unconstitutional prison conditions and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee. He described a pandemic lockdown that kept him in his room about 21 hours daily and required him to share a cell for at least 17 days.
The court identified three of Heffley’s earlier cases that it said counted as strikes because they were dismissed for failing to state a valid claim. Under the three-strikes rule, a prisoner with three such strikes generally cannot proceed without paying the filing fee unless the prisoner faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury. The court said Heffley had not alleged such danger when he filed this case.
Judge Stanton gave Heffley 30 days to submit a declaration explaining why the three-strikes rule should not apply. The court did not yet deny the fee waiver or dismiss the case; it said that if Heffley does not respond or does not show cause, it will deny the fee waiver, dismiss the action without prejudice, and bar him from filing future actions without paying fees while incarcerated.
The detailed version
- Heffley v. FCI Otisville · No. 1:20-cv-05811
- Louis Stanton
- Feb. 16, 2021
Background
Travis Heffley, incarcerated at FCI Otisville and proceeding without a lawyer, filed this action against FCI Otisville. He alleged unconstitutional conditions of confinement and asked to proceed without prepaying the filing fee.
Heffley described a “COVID-19 pandemic influenza prevention lockdown” that caused him to spend approximately 21 hours in his room. He also alleged that he was required to share a cell with another prisoner for at least 17 days.
Three-Strikes Rule
The Prison Litigation Reform Act contains a three-strikes provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). It generally prevents a prisoner from proceeding without prepaying the filing fee when the prisoner has previously brought at least three federal civil actions or appeals that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim, unless the prisoner was under imminent danger of serious physical injury when the new case was filed.
The court identified three earlier cases filed by Heffley as strikes: two cases in the Southern District of New York, docket numbers 17-CV-5518 and 17-CV-10033, and one case in the Southern District of Illinois, docket number 18-CV-0140. The court stated that each had been dismissed for failure to state a claim.
The court found that Heffley had accumulated three strikes and therefore was barred from proceeding without prepaying the fee unless the imminent-danger exception applied. It stated that Heffley had not alleged facts suggesting that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed this action.
Order to Show Cause
Because Heffley was representing himself, the court gave him notice and an opportunity to respond before making a final decision unfavorable to him. The court directed him to file, within 30 days, a declaration explaining why he should not be barred under Section 1915(g).
The order is conditional rather than a final ruling on the fee application or the action. If Heffley does not respond or does not show that the three-strikes provision should not apply, the court stated that it will deny his application to proceed without prepaying the fee, dismiss this action without prejudice, and bar him from proceeding without prepaying fees in future actions while he is a prisoner. The order also states that Heffley may file a new case by prepaying the filing fees. All other pending matters were terminated.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.