Davis v. Taylor
- Laura Swain
- 1:20-cv-04610
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Davis v. Taylor, Judge Swain barred Davis from future fee-free filings while imprisoned, denied fee-free status, and dismissed the complaint without prejudice.
William Scott Davis, who was barred from future fee-free filings in the Southern District of New York while imprisoned unless he faces an imminent threat of serious physical injury; the complaint was dismissed without prejudice, and the court’s outstanding motions were terminated.
What happened
Davis v. Taylor involved William Scott Davis’s request to proceed without paying filing fees while he was a prisoner. The court had found that he previously filed at least three cases dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a claim.
Davis tried to show why the filing restriction should not apply and challenged the court’s earlier order, but the Second Circuit dismissed his appeals. The court found that he had not shown an imminent threat of serious physical injury.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain barred Davis from filing future actions without paying fees in that court while he is imprisoned, unless he faces such an imminent threat. She denied his request to proceed without paying fees, dismissed the complaint without prejudice, terminated his remaining motions, and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Davis v. Taylor · No. 1:20-cv-04610
- Laura Swain
- Mar. 8, 2023
Background
William Scott Davis filed the action without a lawyer and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court had previously found that, while Davis was a prisoner, he had filed three or more cases that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a claim. Those dismissals are commonly called “strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
The court had ordered Davis to explain, by declaration, why he should not be barred from filing future actions without paying fees while imprisoned. Davis filed a declaration, two motions asking the court to change its earlier order, and a notice of an interlocutory appeal. The court denied those motions and postponed its final decision on the filing restriction while the appeal was pending. Davis later filed additional motions, another declaration, and another interlocutory appeal. The Second Circuit dismissed his appeals on February 15, 2023.
Ruling
The court found that Davis had not shown why the filing restriction should not apply. It barred him from filing future actions without paying fees in that court while he is a prisoner, unless he is under an imminent threat of serious physical injury.
The court denied Davis’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee because he did not state facts showing that he faced an imminent threat of serious physical injury. It dismissed the complaint without prejudice under the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s three-strikes rule. The opinion states that Davis may start a new action by paying the filing fees, and that any new prisoner civil-rights complaint would be reviewed under the statutory screening process.
The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate Davis’s outstanding motions and enter judgment. It also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Davis permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal. The court warned that frivolous or nonmeritorious filings could lead to additional sanctions, including monetary penalties.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.