Burns v. Smith

Background

George Burns brought this civil action against Patrick A. Smith, whom Burns identified as an investigator for the New York State Attorney Grievance Committee of the Ninth Judicial District. Burns alleged that Smith violated his constitutionally protected liberties by rejecting and returning filings in which Burns complained about conflicts of interest involving the Legal Aid Society of Westchester County’s representation of Burns in a pending criminal matter.

Burns asked to proceed without prepaying the filing fee, a status commonly called proceeding in forma pauperis. The opinion states that Burns was held at the Mid-Hudson Forensic Psychiatric Center and that he was proceeding without a lawyer.

Three-strikes rule

The Prison Litigation Reform Act bars a prisoner from bringing a new civil action without prepaying fees if the prisoner has had three or more prior federal actions or appeals dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or legally insufficient. An exception applies when the prisoner is in imminent danger of serious physical injury, meaning an immediate danger of serious physical harm.

Burns acknowledged that he had three qualifying prior dismissals. He argued that the imminent-danger exception applied because he was housed in a ward with four other patients who had tested positive for COVID-19, and because he was experiencing COVID-19 symptoms. The court applied the requirement that the alleged danger must be connected to the claims in the new action and that a favorable decision could remedy the injury.

Court’s ruling

The court concluded that Burns’s COVID-19 allegations concerned the conditions of his confinement at the psychiatric center, while his claims against Smith concerned Smith’s handling of Burns’s filings. A favorable decision against Smith would not remedy any injury related to Burns’s housing in the COVID-19 ward. The court therefore found that Burns did not qualify for the imminent-danger exception.

The court denied Burns’s request to proceed without prepaying fees and dismissed the complaint without prejudice under the three-strikes rule. It also denied fee-free status for an appeal after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment dismissing the action. The opinion states that Burns may begin a new federal civil action by paying the filing fees, subject to the prisoner-complaint review required by federal law.