Foreman v. Winters
- Laura Swain
- 1:21-cv-03212
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Foreman v. Winters, Judge Swain denied IFP, dismissed the complaint without prejudice under the three-strikes rule, and denied counsel as moot.
The ruling affected Kenyaitta (Crosby) Foreman's ability to proceed without paying filing fees and ended this complaint without prejudice. It also denied his request for free counsel as moot and fee-free status for an appeal.
What happened
In Foreman v. Winters, the plaintiff, who was detained when he filed the case without a lawyer, asked to proceed without paying filing fees. He alleged that he had been falsely arrested.
The court ruled that the plaintiff had three prior qualifying dismissals under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Because his complaint did not show that he faced an immediate threat of serious physical injury, the court said he could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
Judge Swain denied the request to proceed without paying fees and dismissed the complaint without prejudice under the three-strikes rule. She also denied the request for free legal counsel as moot and denied fee-free status for any appeal from the order.
The detailed version
- Foreman v. Winters · No. 1:21-cv-03212
- Laura Swain
- Apr. 29, 2021
Background
Kenyaitta (Crosby) Foreman filed this action while detained in the Anna M. Cross Center on Rikers Island and was proceeding without a lawyer. He later was detained in Manhattan Hospital Center under New York Criminal Procedure Law § 730.30. Foreman asked to proceed without prepaying the filing fees, a status commonly called proceeding in forma pauperis (IFP). He also later requested free legal counsel.
The complaint alleged that Foreman had been falsely arrested on or about February 7 or 9. The opinion does not decide whether that allegation was true or whether the defendants violated the law.
Three-Strikes Rule
The Prison Litigation Reform Act bars a detained person from filing a civil action without paying the filing fee when, on three or more prior occasions while detained or incarcerated, the person brought an action or appeal that was dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a claim. The exception is when the person was under an imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed.
The court relied on an earlier order stating that Foreman had already accumulated three qualifying dismissals. It then found that the new complaint did not show an imminent danger of serious physical injury. The alleged false arrest did not establish that exception under the circumstances described in the opinion.
Disposition
The court denied Foreman's request to proceed IFP and dismissed the complaint without prejudice under the Prison Litigation Reform Act's three-strikes rule. The opinion states that Foreman may start a new action by paying the filing fees, after which the complaint would be reviewed under the screening provisions applicable to detained plaintiffs.
The court denied Foreman's request for free legal counsel as moot. It also certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied IFP status for purposes of an appeal. The order was signed by Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.