Hall v. Green Haven Correctional Facility
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-03667
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Hall v. Green Haven Correctional Facility, Judge Swain denied IFP status and dismissed the complaint without prejudice because the prisoner’s allegations did not show imminent danger.
Ralph Hall was affected: his request to proceed without prepaying filing fees was denied, and his complaint was dismissed without prejudice. He remains barred from filing new actions without paying filing fees while in custody unless he shows an imminent threat of serious physical injury.
What happened
In Hall v. Green Haven Correctional Facility, Ralph Hall, who was incarcerated and represented himself, asked to file the case without paying filing fees upfront. The court said a previous order had barred him from filing new cases without paying fees while incarcerated because of the prison-law three-strikes rule.
That rule applies when a prisoner has had at least three earlier cases or appeals dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or legally insufficient. An exception applies if the prisoner faces an imminent danger of serious physical injury. Hall’s complaint alleged a mail problem from November and December 2021, but the court found that it did not show an imminent danger when he filed this case.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied Hall’s request to proceed without paying filing fees and dismissed the complaint without prejudice, meaning he could start a new case by paying the filing fees. The court also denied fee-waiver status for any appeal, found that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, and directed the Clerk to enter judgment.
The detailed version
- Hall v. Green Haven Correctional Facility · No. 1:23-cv-03667
- Laura Swain
- May 2, 2023
Background
Ralph Hall, who was incarcerated at Green Haven Correctional Facility, brought this action without a lawyer. He asked to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), meaning without prepaying the filing fees. The caption names Green Haven Correctional Facility and other defendants.
Three-Strikes Rule
The Prison Litigation Reform Act bars a prisoner from filing a civil action IFP if, on three or more prior occasions while incarcerated or detained, the prisoner brought an action or appeal in a federal court that was dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim. The exception is when the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
The court stated that a prior order had already determined that Hall was barred from filing new actions IFP while incarcerated. The court also found that Hall’s complaint did not show that he was in imminent danger when he filed it. Instead, the complaint alleged a problem with his mail in November and December 2021. The court therefore applied the three-strikes rule.
Disposition
The court denied Hall’s request to proceed IFP and dismissed the complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Hall remains barred from filing future actions IFP while he is in custody unless he is under an imminent threat of serious physical injury. The opinion states that he may start a new action by paying the filing fees, after which the complaint would be subject to prisoner screening under 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 IFP status for purposes of an appeal. The Clerk of Court was directed to enter judgment. 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.