Summary
The Second Circuit affirmed dismissal of Russell D. Palmer’s civil rights action under the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s three-strikes provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The court held that three separately filed actions later consolidated by the district court counted as three separate strikes and that Palmer did not satisfy the imminent-danger exception.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether three separately filed actions that were later consolidated and dismissed for failure to state a claim count as one strike or three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
- Whether Palmer adequately alleged that he was under an imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed his complaint, so as to invoke the exception to the PLRA three-strikes bar.
Holdings
- Three separately filed actions that were each dismissed for failure to state a claim constitute three separate strikes under § 1915(g), even when the actions were later consolidated.
- Palmer did not adequately allege an imminent danger of serious physical injury because, when he filed the complaint, he had been transferred away from the facility where the alleged danger occurred and had received care at the new facility.
Key quotations
“The relevant acts in this case are Palmer’s three separate filings that were each dismissed for failure to state claim.” (at 656)
“The court’s act of consolidating the three cases did not convert the dismissals into a single strike.” (at 656)
Factual background
Palmer had filed three separate actions on or about July 24, 2001; the district court later consolidated them and dismissed each for failure to state a claim. He also agreed that a separate dismissal in Palmer v. Alvarez, No. 05 Civ. 3258, constituted a strike. Palmer's present allegations concerned injuries from drinking contaminated water and receiving inadequate medical care at Green Haven Correctional Facility, but he had been transferred to Otisville Correctional Facility by the time he filed the complaint and acknowledged receiving care there.
Procedural history
The district court determined that Palmer had at least four strikes under § 1915(g), counting three separately filed actions that were later consolidated and dismissed for failure to state a claim as three strikes. The court also rejected Palmer's reliance on the imminent-danger exception because he had been transferred from the facility where the alleged danger occurred and had received care at his new facility. The Second Circuit affirmed.