Mickles v. Powell
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-04781
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Mickles v. Powell: Judge Swain denied IFP status and dismissed the action without prejudice under the PLRA’s three-strikes rule.
Terrell Mickles, an incarcerated person representing himself, could not proceed in this action without paying the filing fee and remains barred from filing future federal civil actions without paying while incarcerated unless he shows imminent danger of serious physical injury.
What happened
In Mickles v. Powell, Terrell Mickles filed a federal civil action without paying the filing fees or submitting the required paperwork to proceed without paying. He was incarcerated and represented himself.
The court said Mickles was barred from proceeding without paying because he had three or more earlier cases dismissed for reasons covered by the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s three-strikes rule. The complaint also did not show that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury, an exception to that rule.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied Mickles’s request to proceed without paying and dismissed the action without prejudice. The court also denied permission to appeal without paying, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Mickles v. Powell · No. 1:22-cv-04781
- Laura Swain
- June 8, 2022
Background
Terrell Mickles brought this action against Patrice Powell and other defendants. The opinion lists defendants including “Patrice Powell, Ft. Walton Beach, FL,” “Kayla Hall, Foley, AL,” “Brittan Hall, Silverhill, AL,” and “Pam Childers, Etcetara, Clerk of Court/Audits, Pensacola, FL.” Mickles was incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Terre Haute, Indiana, and represented himself.
Mickles did not submit a request to proceed in forma pauperis (without paying the filing fee), a prisoner authorization, or the filing fees. Because he had not paid the fees, the court treated the filing as requesting permission to proceed without paying.
Court’s Analysis
The court applied the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s “three-strikes” rule, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That rule generally bars a prisoner from bringing a federal civil action without paying 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 bar does not apply if the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
The court said Mickles was already barred from filing a new federal civil action without paying while he was a prisoner. The opinion relied on a decision in a prior related proceeding. It also determined that Mickles’s complaint did not show an imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court stated that the allegations it could understand did not suggest that he faced such danger.
Disposition
The court denied Mickles’s request to proceed without paying and dismissed the action without prejudice under the PLRA’s three-strikes rule. Mickles remains barred from filing a future federal civil action without paying while he is incarcerated unless he shows imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court noted that he may begin a new federal civil action by paying the required fees, subject to the prisoner-complaint screening required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying. Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.