Lurch, Jr. v. Doe
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:22-cv-02324
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Lurch, Jr. v. Doe, Judge Broderick ordered supplemental briefing on possible Prison Litigation Reform Act strikes without deciding whether to revoke Plaintiff’s fee-free status.
The order directly requires defendants Eric Kim and Amanda Psareas to file a supplemental letter by April 10, 2024. It leaves Robert Derek Lurch, Jr.’s permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees unresolved.
What happened
In Lurch, Jr. v. Doe, the defendants Eric Kim and Amanda Psareas asked the court to require Robert Derek Lurch, Jr. to explain why his permission to proceed without paying filing fees should not be revoked. They identified four earlier cases that they said counted as dismissals, or “strikes,” under the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
The court noted that two of the claimed strikes appeared to involve dismissals under Heck v. Humphrey. On the same day, the Second Circuit had issued a decision addressing whether a Heck dismissal counts as a Prison Litigation Reform Act strike for failure to state a claim.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick ordered Eric Kim and Amanda Psareas to file a supplemental letter by April 10, 2024, explaining how that Second Circuit decision affects the second and third claimed strikes. The order did not decide whether any case counted as a strike or whether Lurch’s fee-free status should be revoked.
The detailed version
- Lurch, Jr. v. Doe · No. 1:22-cv-02324
- Vernon Broderick
- Mar. 20, 2024
Background
Counsel for defendants Eric Kim and Amanda Psareas, whom the court called the “City Defendants,” asked the court to order Robert Derek Lurch, Jr. to show why his permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees should not be revoked. The request relied on the Prison Litigation Reform Act, a federal law that can restrict a prisoner’s ability to proceed without paying filing fees after qualifying cases have been dismissed. The City Defendants identified four earlier cases as possible “strikes.”
The Potential Strikes
The four cases identified by the City Defendants were:
- A case filed in the Southern District of New York, identified as No. 16-cv-03835;
- A case filed in the Eastern District of North Carolina, identified as 16-CT-3133;
- A case filed in the Southern District of New York, identified as 18-CV-2379; and
- A case filed in the Southern District of New York, identified as No. 20-CV-3430.
The opinion states that the second and third claimed strikes appeared to be dismissals under Heck v. Humphrey. On March 14, 2024, the Second Circuit issued a decision addressing whether a dismissal under Heck qualifies as a Prison Litigation Reform Act strike for failure to state a claim.
Order
Judge Vernon S. Broderick ordered the City Defendants to file a supplemental letter by April 10, 2024, addressing the Second Circuit’s decision and its effect on the second and third claimed strikes.
The order did not decide whether the four earlier cases qualify as strikes. It also did not decide whether Robert Derek Lurch, Jr.’s permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees should be revoked.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.