Levesque v. Radhakrishnan

Background

Andre Rene Levesque filed a civil action against the Mid-Hudson Forensic Psychiatric Center, Doctor Venkataraman Radhakrishnan, Dawn Mulder, Mr. Wiggins, and unidentified defendants. He was detained at the center and represented himself. He requested permission to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), meaning without prepaying the filing fee.

Levesque’s filings described alleged mistreatment and rights violations at several facilities and in criminal proceedings. His allegations about the Mid-Hudson facility included threats involving food and recreation, denial of requested vaccines and dietary or spiritual accommodations, discrimination, limited recreation and library access, problems involving attorneys and medical care, and other complaints. He sought one billion British pounds sterling, which he stated equaled 1.34 billion U.S. dollars.

Three-Strikes Rule

The Prison Litigation Reform Act’s three-strikes provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), generally prevents a prisoner from bringing a civil action without prepaying the filing fee if, on three or more earlier occasions while incarcerated or detained, the prisoner brought an action or appeal that was dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim. The exception applies when the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.

The court relied on an earlier related proceeding in which a judge determined that Levesque had accumulated three strikes. The court explained that past harm alone is insufficient; the complaint must show a danger existing when the complaint was filed, or an ongoing pattern that continues. It must also show a connection between the alleged imminent danger and the claims, including that a favorable ruling could address the injury.

Court’s Analysis and Ruling

The court concluded that many of Levesque’s allegations concerned harms that had ended before he filed the complaint. Even considering only allegations about his current confinement, the court found that they did not satisfy the required timing or connection to the imminent-danger exception, and that he did not seek relief addressing an allegedly unlawful condition that he continued to face.

The court therefore denied Levesque’s request to proceed IFP and dismissed the complaint without prejudice under Section 1915(g). The order states that Levesque may begin a new action by paying the filing fees, although any new prisoner civil-rights complaint would remain subject to statutory screening. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied IFP status for an appeal. The Clerk was directed to terminate the other pending matters and mail the order to Levesque.