Jean-Louis v. Mayor City of New York
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-04286
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Jean-Louis v. Mayor City of New York, Judge Swain denied fee-waiver status and dismissed the complaint without prejudice under the PLRA’s three-strikes rule.
Joseph W. Jean-Louis’s request to proceed without prepaying fees was denied, and his complaint was dismissed without prejudice. The ruling also continues to bar him from proceeding IFP in future actions while he is in custody, absent an imminent threat of serious physical injury.
What happened
In Joseph W. Jean-Louis v. Mayor City of New York, Joseph W. Jean-Louis sued Mayor City of New York and Governor State of New York. He filed without paying the required fees and sought permission to proceed without prepaying them.
The court said Jean-Louis had three or more prior cases dismissed for being frivolous or for failing to state a claim. It also said his complaint did not show that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury. His complaint alleged that New York City was unprepared for a biochemical or atomic attack.
The court denied Jean-Louis’s request to proceed without prepaying fees and dismissed the complaint without prejudice under the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s three-strikes rule. Judge Swain also denied fee-waiver status for any appeal and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment.
The detailed version
- Jean-Louis v. Mayor City of New York · No. 1:23-cv-04286
- Laura Swain
- May 25, 2023
Background
Joseph W. Jean-Louis brought this action without a lawyer while detained at the Anna M. Kross Correctional Facility on Rikers Island. Because he did not submit the required $402.00 filing fees, the court treated his filing as a request to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), meaning without prepaying the fees.
The complaint alleged that the City of New York was unprepared for a “biochemical” or “atomic” attack. The court identified at least three prior actions or appeals brought by Jean-Louis while incarcerated or detained that had been dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim.
Three-Strikes Rule
The Prison Litigation Reform Act’s three-strikes provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), generally bars a prisoner from proceeding IFP after three qualifying dismissals. The exception applies when the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court explained that the danger must exist when the complaint is filed.
The court concluded that Jean-Louis was barred from filing this action IFP because his complaint did not show imminent danger of serious physical injury. The opinion states that he could start a new action by paying the required filing fees, after which the complaint would be reviewed under the prisoner-screening statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Disposition
The court denied Jean-Louis’s request to proceed IFP and dismissed the complaint without prejudice under the PLRA’s three-strikes rule. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied IFP status for purposes of an appeal. Judge Laura Taylor Swain directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment. The opinion states that Jean-Louis remains barred from filing future actions IFP while in custody unless he is under an imminent threat of serious physical injury.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.