Gamble v. Peerzada

Background

Kevin Gamble filed the action without a lawyer and requested permission to proceed without paying the filing fee. On June 5, 2023, the court noted that Gamble had filed three or more cases while he was a prisoner that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a claim. These dismissals are called “strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

The court ordered Gamble to explain, by declaration and within 30 days, why the three-strikes restriction should not prevent him from proceeding without paying the filing fee while he was a prisoner. The court also stated that the complaint did not show that Gamble faced an imminent threat of serious physical injury. Gamble did not respond to the order.

Ruling

The court applied the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s three-strikes rule. Section 1915(g) generally prevents a prisoner who has accumulated three qualifying strikes from filing future actions without paying the filing fee, unless the prisoner is under an imminent threat of serious physical injury.

The court found that Gamble had three or more qualifying strikes and that the complaint did not establish the required imminent threat. The court therefore denied Gamble’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee and dismissed the complaint without prejudice under Section 1915(g).

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 proceed without paying the filing fee for an appeal. The clerk was directed to enter judgment. The court’s footnote states that Gamble may begin a new action by paying the filing fee; any new prisoner civil-rights complaint would then be reviewed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.