Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 15, 2021

Hunter v. DOJ - US Homeland Security

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:21-cv-01817
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Hunter v. DOJ–US Homeland Security, Judge Swain denied IFP status and dismissed the complaint without prejudice under the three-strikes rule.

Who this affects

Jason T. Hunter, an incarcerated plaintiff proceeding without a lawyer; the complaint against DOJ – US Homeland Security was dismissed without prejudice, and Hunter was denied permission to proceed without paying the filing fee.

What happened

Jason T. Hunter v. DOJ – US Homeland Security involved a complaint filed by Jason T. Hunter, who was incarcerated and represented himself. He asked to proceed without paying the filing fee.

The court said Hunter had already accumulated at least three qualifying dismissals, so the law barred him from proceeding without paying unless he showed an imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court found that his allegations did not show such a danger.

Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied Hunter’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee and dismissed the complaint without prejudice under the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s three-strikes rule. The order also denied fee-free status for an appeal.

The detailed version

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

Case
Hunter v. DOJ - US Homeland Security · No. 1:21-cv-01817
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
June 15, 2021

Background

Jason T. Hunter, who was incarcerated at Treasure Coast Forensic Treatment Center in Indiantown, Florida, filed this action without a lawyer against DOJ – US Homeland Security. He asked to proceed without paying the filing fee.

Three-strikes rule

The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), commonly called the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s “three-strikes” rule. That rule generally prevents a prisoner from starting a civil action without paying the filing fee if the prisoner previously brought at least three actions or appeals that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a claim. An exception applies when the prisoner is in imminent danger of serious physical injury.

The court relied on an earlier related proceeding stating that Hunter had filed three or more cases dismissed as frivolous. The opinion also states that Hunter had accumulated another qualifying dismissal before filing this action. The court explained that imminent danger must exist when the complaint is filed.

Court’s analysis

The court reviewed the allegations in Hunter’s complaint and said they summarized his past litigation, listed judges assigned to his cases, and asserted claims against various state departments. The court concluded that the allegations did not suggest that Hunter was in imminent danger of serious physical injury.

Ruling

The court denied Hunter’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee and dismissed the complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The order states that Hunter is barred from filing future actions without paying the filing fee while he remains in custody unless he is under an imminent threat of serious physical injury. The court noted that Hunter could start a new action by paying the filing fees, subject to statutory screening. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal. Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order.

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.