Griffin v. Carnes
- Laura Swain
- 1:21-cv-11111
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Griffin v. Carnes, Judge Swain ordered Kevin Griffin to explain why he should receive fee-waiver status despite three prior strikes under the prisoner-litigation law.
Kevin Griffin is affected because the order conditions his ability to proceed without prepaying filing fees on his response to the three-strikes issue. The order does not decide the merits of his due-process claim against Charles Carnes or the Town of Crawford Supervisor.
What happened
In Griffin v. Carnes, Kevin Griffin, who is incarcerated, sued Charles Carnes and the Town of Crawford Supervisor under a federal civil-rights law. He alleges that he was denied due process when his employment as a police officer was terminated in October 2004, and he asked to proceed without paying filing fees in advance.
The court found that Griffin had three earlier cases or appeals that counted as strikes under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Because Griffin did not allege that he faced an immediate threat of serious physical injury when he filed this case, the court ordered him to explain within 30 days why his fee-waiver request should not be denied.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain did not yet deny the request or dismiss the case. She stated that, if Griffin does not respond or does not show that the three-strikes rule does not apply, the court will deny his fee-waiver application, dismiss the action without prejudice, and bar him from filing future cases without paying fees while he is incarcerated.
The detailed version
- Griffin v. Carnes · No. 1:21-cv-11111
- Laura Swain
- Feb. 22, 2022
Background
Kevin Griffin, who is incarcerated at Clinton Correctional Facility, filed this case without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that Charles Carnes denied him due process by terminating his employment as a police officer for the Town of Crawford Police Department in October 2004. Griffin seeks permission to proceed without prepaying the filing fees.
Three-strikes issue
The Prison Litigation Reform Act generally prevents an incarcerated person from proceeding without prepaying filing fees if, on three or more prior occasions while incarcerated or detained, the person brought a federal case or appeal that was dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim. An exception applies when the person was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when the new case was filed.
The court identified three qualifying strikes involving Griffin:
- A 2017 Northern District of New York case that was dismissed as barred by the rule against relitigating the same claim, untimely, and for failure to state a federal claim.
- A 2018 Second Circuit appeal dismissed as lacking an arguable basis in law or fact.
- A 2021 Northern District of New York case dismissed with prejudice under the prisoner-litigation statutes as barred by the rule against relitigating the same claim.
The court stated that Griffin therefore has three strikes and is barred from proceeding without prepaying fees while he is incarcerated. It also stated that Griffin did not allege facts suggesting that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed this case.
Order to show cause
Because this was an unfavorable potential ruling for a person proceeding without a lawyer, the court gave Griffin notice and an opportunity to respond before making a final decision. The court directed him to file, within 30 days, a declaration explaining any reason why the three-strikes rule should not bar his fee-waiver request.
The court did not yet deny Griffin’s application to proceed without prepaying fees and did not yet dismiss the action. It stated that, if Griffin does not respond or does not make the required showing, the court will deny the application, dismiss the action without prejudice, and bar him from filing future actions without prepaying fees while he is incarcerated. Griffin remains permitted to file a new case by paying the filing fees.
The court also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate all other pending matters in the case. It certified that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.