Hill v. Government for the State of New York

Background

Eric Rodney Hill filed the action representing himself and asked to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. The court had previously ordered him to explain why the “three-strikes” rule in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) should not bar him from proceeding without prepaying the fee. Hill responded with letters, but the court found that he did not provide a reason to avoid the bar.

The court stated that Hill’s complaint sought damages based on a disciplinary determination. Hill also asserted that, after filing the case, Associate Warden Plourde allegedly threatened that Hill would be “leaving here in a body bag” if he emailed Warden Jamison about being removed from restrictions.

Court’s analysis

Section 1915(g) generally bars a prisoner who has had three or more prior cases dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a claim from filing another civil action without prepaying the filing fee. The exception applies when the prisoner shows that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury and that the danger is connected to the claims in the new case.

The court found that Hill had three qualifying prior dismissals. It also found that the alleged threat did not satisfy the exception because Associate Warden Plourde was not a defendant, the threat occurred after Hill filed this case, and the damages claim concerning the disciplinary determination would not provide relief for that later threat. The court therefore concluded that the threat did not justify allowing Hill to proceed without prepaying the fee.

The court also noted that challenges seeking release or contesting a conviction generally must be brought through the procedures for challenging state or federal convictions, rather than through this civil action. The court stated that the three-strikes rule does not apply to petitions challenging custody through those procedures.

Disposition

The court denied Hill’s request to proceed without prepaying the filing fee and dismissed the complaint without prejudice under Section 1915(g). The court stated that Hill could start a new action by paying the filing fee, after which the complaint would be reviewed under the prisoner-screening statute. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal.

This is a procedural order because the court resolved the filing-fee and prisoner-screening issue without deciding whether Hill was entitled to damages on the underlying disciplinary claim.