Wallace v. All Personal Liability Carriers-Underwriters of Land
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-08022
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Wallace v. All Personal Liability Carriers-Underwriters of Land: Judge Swain dismissed the action without prejudice and denied Wallace’s fee-waiver request under the three-strikes rule.
The ruling directly affected Charles Kenneth Wallace, Sr., whose request to proceed without prepaying fees was denied and whose complaint was dismissed without prejudice. It also affected Ronald Hillis because the action was dismissed, although the court stated that Hillis could file a new action and request permission to waive prepayment of the filing fee.
What happened
In Wallace v. All Personal Liability Carriers-Underwriters of Land, Charles Kenneth Wallace, Sr. and Ronald Hillis, both incarcerated and representing themselves, sued the defendants and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront.
The court said Wallace had at least three earlier cases dismissed for reasons covered by the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s three-strikes rule. Because the complaint did not allege facts showing that Wallace faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury, he could not proceed without paying the filing fee. The opinion states that Hillis could file a new case and ask to have the filing fee waived.
Judge Swain denied Wallace’s request to proceed without prepaying fees and dismissed the complaint without prejudice under the three-strikes rule. The court also said an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Wallace v. All Personal Liability Carriers-Underwriters of Land · No. 1:22-cv-08022
- Laura Swain
- Dec. 9, 2022
Background
Charles Kenneth Wallace, Sr. and Ronald Hillis, who were both incarcerated at the David Wade Correctional Center, brought the action without lawyers. They requested permission to proceed without prepaying the filing fee, a status commonly called proceeding in forma pauperis. The complaint named All Personal Liability Carriers-Underwriters of Land and several individuals identified as members of the Sackler family. It generally complained about the opioid crisis.
Three-strikes rule
The court applied the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s three-strikes provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That provision generally prevents a prisoner from bringing a civil action without prepaying the filing fee when the prisoner has had three or more earlier actions or appeals dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or failing to state a claim, unless the prisoner alleges an imminent danger of serious physical injury.
The court stated that Wallace had at least four qualifying earlier dismissals and was barred from filing a new action without prepaying fees while he remained a prisoner. Wallace therefore had to allege facts showing an imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court found that the complaint did not do so. It stated that the complaint’s allegations about the Sackler family and the opioid crisis did not include facts suggesting that Wallace faced such a danger.
The opinion separately stated that, if Hillis intended to continue, he could file a new civil action and request that the court waive prepayment of the filing fee.
Ruling
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied Wallace’s request to proceed without prepaying fees. The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice under the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s three-strikes rule. The dismissal was based on Wallace’s inability to proceed without prepaying the filing fee and the absence of allegations showing imminent danger; the opinion did not decide the underlying allegations about the opioid crisis.
The court also stated that Wallace remained barred from filing future actions without prepaying fees while he was in custody unless he faced an imminent threat of serious physical injury. It certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal. The court directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.