Antrobus v. City of New York, Rikers Island

Background

Andre Antrobus, an incarcerated person representing himself, sued the City of New York, Rikers Island, Cynthia Brann, and Warden Michelle Hallon. He sought damages and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee, known as proceeding in forma pauperis (IFP).

The complaint alleged two unrelated sets of events. First, Antrobus said he slipped and fell on March 18, 2021, because he was wearing sneakers issued by the New York City Department of Correction. He said he was then using a “makeshift boot” but had not received a cane or another assistive medical device. Second, he alleged that another inmate attacked him at the Eric M. Taylor Center on March 22, 2021, using a stick and a shank. He asserted that the City and Rikers Island officials failed to protect him and that he received inadequate medical treatment, including only a “used ice pack.”

IFP restriction and imminent-danger exception

The court explained that federal law bars a prisoner from filing a civil action without paying the filing fee after three earlier qualifying actions or appeals were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or failing to state a claim. The exception applies when the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury, meaning a danger existing when the complaint is filed. The court also explained that the danger must be connected to the legal claims in the complaint.

In an earlier order, the court directed Antrobus to show why the imminent-danger exception should apply to his claims about medical devices and protection from the March 22 assault. In his later declaration, Antrobus described alleged assaults by correction officers on April 7, 10, and 12, 2021, involving “bear spray.” The court found that these events were unrelated to the complaint and occurred after the complaint was filed. It also found that the declaration did not show an imminent danger connected to the claims in this case or that the requested money damages would remedy that danger.

Disposition

The court denied Antrobus’s request to proceed IFP and dismissed the complaint without prejudice under the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s three-strikes rule, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The order stated that he remained barred from filing future actions IFP while incarcerated unless he faced an imminent threat of serious physical injury. It also stated that he could begin a new action by paying the filing fee. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied IFP status for purposes of an appeal.