Akinleye v. The City of Peekskill
- Laura Swain
- 1:21-cv-05538
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Akinleye v. The City of Peekskill, Judge Swain denied permission to proceed without paying fees and dismissed the complaint without prejudice under the prisoner three-strikes rule.
Akintunde Akinleye’s request to proceed without prepaying fees was denied, and his complaint was dismissed without prejudice. The order also continued to restrict his ability to file future actions without prepaying fees while he is in custody, absent an imminent threat of serious physical injury.
What happened
In Akinleye v. The City of Peekskill, Akintunde Akinleye, who was being held in the Westchester County Jail and represented himself, challenged an alleged strip search during a traffic stop. He asked to bring the case without paying the filing fee.
The court said Akinleye was barred from proceeding without paying because an earlier order had found that the prisoner three-strikes rule applied to him. That rule generally prevents a detained person with at least three qualifying prior dismissed cases or appeals from proceeding without paying, unless the person faces an immediate danger of serious physical injury. The complaint did not show such a danger.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied Akinleye’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee and dismissed the complaint without prejudice under the three-strikes rule. The court said he could start a new action by paying the filing fee, and it also denied permission to appeal without paying because the appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Akinleye v. The City of Peekskill · No. 1:21-cv-05538
- Laura Swain
- June 29, 2021
Background
Akintunde Akinleye brought the action against The City of Peekskill, PO Justice John Doe, the State of New York, and Westchester County. The opinion states that Akinleye was being held in the Westchester County Jail and was proceeding without a lawyer. He alleged that he was subjected to a strip search during a traffic stop on an unspecified date. He requested permission to proceed without prepaying the filing fee, commonly called in forma pauperis status.
Three-strikes rule
The court relied on 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), part of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. That provision generally bars a prisoner from bringing a civil action without prepaying the filing fee if, on three or more prior occasions while incarcerated or detained, the prisoner brought an action or appeal that was dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a claim. The exception applies when the prisoner is under an imminent danger of serious physical injury.
The court stated that an earlier order had already barred Akinleye from filing a new action without prepaying fees while he was a prisoner. The court further determined that the complaint did not show an imminent danger. It explained that the alleged danger must exist when the complaint is filed, and that a danger that had already ended would not qualify. The opinion does not decide whether the alleged strip search violated the law.
Ruling
The court denied Akinleye’s request to proceed without prepaying fees and dismissed the complaint without prejudice under the three-strikes rule. The dismissal without prejudice means the order did not state that the complaint was permanently barred on the merits. The court explained that Akinleye could begin a new action by paying the filing fee; any such prisoner civil-rights complaint would then be reviewed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
The court also certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and therefore denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The order further stated that Akinleye would remain barred from proceeding without prepaying fees in future actions while he was in custody unless he faced an imminent threat of serious physical injury.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.