Summary
The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina denied Henry J. Dukes’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis under the three-strikes provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The court held that Dukes had accrued at least three qualifying dismissals and had not shown that he faced an imminent danger of serious physical injury, granting him 21 days to pay the filing fee or face dismissal without prejudice.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Plaintiff had accrued at least three qualifying dismissals under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), thereby precluding in forma pauperis status absent the imminent-danger exception.
- Whether Plaintiff's allegations established that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time of filing.
- Whether Plaintiff was entitled to an extension of time to file additional objections to the magistrate judge's Report.
Holdings
- Plaintiff had accrued at least three prior actions dismissed on grounds enumerated in § 1915(g), and therefore could not proceed in forma pauperis unless he satisfied the imminent-danger exception.
- Plaintiff failed to establish the imminent-danger exception because the alleged injury arose from conduct occurring in August 2024 and his assertions that Defendant Coulter posed a general threat to inmates were too vague and general to show that Plaintiff faced imminent danger of serious physical injury at filing.
- Specific objections require de novo review of the challenged portions of the Report, while unobjected-to portions or portions addressed only by general and conclusory objections are reviewed for clear error.
- Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time was denied because he did not explain why additional objections could not have been included with his timely-filed objections and did not identify any additional grounds.
Key quotations
“To satisfy the imminent-danger exception, an inmate must “allege[ ] sufficient and specific facts establishing that he or she is in imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time of filing.””
“The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which a specific objection is made”
“To trigger de novo review, an objecting party ‘must object to the finding or recommendation on that issue with sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert the district court of the true ground for the objection.’”
Factual background
Plaintiff Henry J. Dukes, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brought a § 1983 action against correctional officials alleging Eighth Amendment violations. The magistrate judge identified at least three prior actions dismissed on grounds qualifying as strikes under § 1915(g). Plaintiff's current allegations concerned conduct occurring in August 2024, and his objections asserted that Defendant Coulter posed an ongoing general danger to inmates at Lee Correctional Institution.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Eighth Amendment violations and moved to proceed in forma pauperis. The magistrate judge determined that Plaintiff had accrued at least three qualifying dismissals under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and that the imminent-danger exception did not apply. After Plaintiff objected, the district court conducted de novo review of the challenged portions, overruled the objections, adopted the Report, denied in forma pauperis status, denied Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time, and allowed twenty-one days to pay the filing fee before conditional dismissal without prejudice.
Remand instructions
Plaintiff was granted twenty-one days from the date of the order to pay the $405 filing fee. If he failed to pay, the Clerk was directed to dismiss the action without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). If he paid, the action was to be returned to the magistrate judge for further review.