Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitcivil rights
lawsuitplaintiffdefendantlitigationcivil rights

Related Cases

Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of Burlington, 566 U.S. 318, 132 S.Ct. 1510, 182 L.Ed.2d 566, 80 USLW 4299, 12 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3697, 2012 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4235, 23 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 248
View Case »
Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, 124 S.Ct. 795, 157 L.Ed.2d 769, 72 USLW 4103, 03 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10,763, 2003 Daily Journal D.A.R. 13,581, 17 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 83
View Case »
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889, 44 O.O.2d 383
View Case »
Maryland v. Shatzer, 559 U.S. 98, 130 S.Ct. 1213, 175 L.Ed.2d 1045, 78 USLW 4159, 10 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2218, 2010 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2731, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 135
View Case »
Katz v. U.S., 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

White v. Washington, Slip Copy, 2024 WL 1076801

Facts

Mark White, an inmate at the Thumb Correctional Facility in Michigan, filed a civil rights complaint alleging that he suffered cruel and unusual punishment while incarcerated at the Cotton Correctional Facility. He claimed that prison officials failed to provide adequate medical treatment for his health issues, forced him to stand in harsh weather conditions, and denied him dental care. Additionally, he reported being threatened by gang members after his possessions were stolen by a cellmate.

Plaintiff Mark White alleges in his complaint that the defendants inflicted cruel and unusual punishment upon him in violation of the Eighth Amendment when they knew that he suffered from certain medical conditions and failed to provide adequate treatment while he was incarcerated at the Cotton Correctional Facility in Jackson, Michigan.

Issue

Whether Mark White can proceed with his civil rights complaint without prepayment of costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) given his history of prior frivolous lawsuits.

Whether Mark White can proceed with his civil rights complaint without prepayment of costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) given his history of prior frivolous lawsuits.

Rule

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner cannot bring a civil action in forma pauperis if they have had three or more prior complaints dismissed as frivolous or malicious, unless they can demonstrate imminent danger of serious physical injury.

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”), Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (April 26, 1996), prevents a prisoner from bringing a civil action in forma pauperis if a court previously has dismissed three or more of his complaints as frivolous or malicious, or for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner alleges that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury.

Analysis

The court analyzed White's claims and determined that he did not meet the imminent danger exception of § 1915(g) because the alleged incidents occurred months prior and he was no longer incarcerated at the facility where the events took place. The court emphasized that past danger does not satisfy the requirement for imminent danger, and White's assertions regarding his ongoing health issues did not qualify as such.

Although White has alleged that he was denied dental care, that he was subjected to harsh conditions that affected his health, and that his property was stolen by gang members, those alleged instances occurred months ago while he was an inmate at JCF.

Conclusion

The court dismissed White's civil rights complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and denied his application to proceed without prepaying fees.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Who won?

The court prevailed in this case by dismissing White's complaint due to his failure to meet the criteria for in forma pauperis status, citing his history of frivolous lawsuits.

The plaintiff cannot proceed in forma pauperis because at least three of the plaintiff's prior civil rights complaints have been dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted according to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

You must be