Almonte v. Law Enforcement Agency
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-00080
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Almonte v. Law Enforcement Agency, Judge Swain ordered a prisoner to explain why the three-strikes rule should not bar proceeding without paying filing fees.
Juan Carlos Almonte, who sought to proceed without prepaying the filing fee while incarcerated; the order also concerns his ability to proceed without prepaying fees in future cases while he is a prisoner.
What happened
In Almonte v. Law Enforcement Agency, Juan Carlos Almonte, a prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, asked to bring his case without paying the filing fee. The court said he had accumulated three qualifying dismissals under the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s three-strikes rule.
The court also said Almonte had not alleged facts showing that he faced an immediate risk of serious physical injury. His largely unreadable complaint appeared to concern state-court judges and prosecutors and events from earlier criminal proceedings.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain gave Almonte 30 days to file a sworn declaration explaining why the rule should not apply. If he does not respond or does not show that the rule does not apply, the court will deny his fee-waiver request and dismiss the action without prejudice; the court also denied fee-waiver status for any appeal from this order.
The detailed version
- Almonte v. Law Enforcement Agency · No. 1:22-cv-00080
- Laura Swain
- Feb. 22, 2022
Background
Juan Carlos Almonte, identified as a prisoner at Sing Sing Correctional Facility, filed this action without a lawyer and asked to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. The court described his complaint as largely illegible and indecipherable, but said it appeared to assert claims against state-court judges and prosecutors arising from his past state-court criminal proceedings.
Three-strikes rule
The Prison Litigation Reform Act’s three-strikes provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), generally bars a prisoner from proceeding without prepaying fees after three or more prior federal actions or appeals were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a legally sufficient claim. An exception applies when the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
The court found that Almonte had accumulated three qualifying strikes, relying on three earlier related proceedings identified by docket number. The court also noted another qualifying dismissal but did not count it because that dismissal occurred after this action was filed. The court stated that Almonte did not allege facts suggesting that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury.
Order to show cause
Because a person proceeding without a lawyer is generally entitled to notice and an opportunity to respond before an unfavorable final decision, the court gave Almonte leave to submit a declaration within 30 days. The declaration must explain why, while incarcerated, he had not filed three or more actions or appeals dismissed on grounds covered by Section 1915(g).
Disposition
The court ordered Almonte to show cause why his application to proceed without prepaying the filing fee should not be denied under the three-strikes provision. It did not yet impose the conditional denial and dismissal described in the order. If Almonte fails to respond or does not show cause, the court will deny his application, dismiss the action without prejudice, and find that he is barred from proceeding without prepaying fees while he remains a prisoner. He may still file a new case by paying the filing fee. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal from this order.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.