Antrobus v. Annucci
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:21-cv-01161
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Antrobus v. Annucci, Judge Schofield denied Andre Antrobus’s fee-waiver request and dismissed his complaint without prejudice under the prisoner three-strikes rule.
Andre Antrobus was affected because he could not proceed without prepaying court fees, his complaint was dismissed without prejudice, and he remained subject to the prisoner three-strikes bar while in custody unless he faced an imminent threat of serious physical injury. The court also denied fee-free status for an appeal.
What happened
Antrobus v. Annucci involved Andre Antrobus, who was proceeding without a lawyer and asked to file without paying court fees. The court stated that he had previously filed three prisoner actions that were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim, so he could proceed without paying fees only if he faced an imminent danger of serious physical injury.
Antrobus alleged that he was housed near people with COVID-19, had fallen on wet floors and stairs, suffered a broken ankle, and experienced pain from inadequate dental care. The court found the COVID-19 allegation too speculative and conclusory, and found that the allegations about his falls and dental pain did not meet the legal standard for imminent and serious physical harm.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield denied Antrobus’s request to proceed without paying fees and dismissed the complaint without prejudice under the prisoner three-strikes rule. The court also stated that he remains barred from filing future actions without paying fees while in custody unless he faces an imminent threat of serious physical injury, and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Antrobus v. Annucci · No. 1:21-cv-01161
- Lorna Schofield
- May 25, 2021
Background
Andre Antrobus, who was representing himself, asked to proceed without prepaying court fees. The opinion states that he was being held at the Vernon C. Bain Center in the Bronx. It also states that he had filed three earlier prisoner actions that were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act’s “three-strikes” provision generally bars a prisoner with three qualifying prior actions from proceeding without prepaying fees. The exception applies if the prisoner plausibly shows that he was under an imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed and that the danger was connected to the unlawful conduct described in the complaint.
Allegations and Analysis
Antrobus alleged that he was kept near three people with COVID-19. The court held that this allegation was too speculative and conclusory to establish imminent danger under the statute.
Antrobus also alleged that he had fallen three times on wet stairs and floors, suffered injuries including a broken ankle, and experienced general pain from untreated dental problems. The court stated that, without minimizing those claimed injuries, they were not legally sufficient concrete allegations of imminent and serious physical harm.
Ruling
Judge Lorna G. Schofield denied Antrobus’s request to proceed without prepaying fees and dismissed the complaint without prejudice under the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s three-strikes rule. The court stated that Antrobus remains barred from filing future actions without prepaying fees while in custody unless he is under an imminent threat of serious physical injury.
The court also certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The ruling addressed the threshold question of whether Antrobus could proceed without prepaying fees; it did not decide the underlying claims in the complaint.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.