Jimmie Earl Stephens v. J. Shaffer, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations denying Jimmie Earl Stephens’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. The court held that the three-strikes provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) applied and that Stephens had not shown imminent danger of serious physical injury, ordering him to pay the $405 filing fee within 30 days.

Holdings

1. Canell did not overrule Tierney because the two cases addressed different issues: Tierney held that pre-PLRA dismissals may qualify as strikes, while Canell held that § 1915(g) does not apply retroactively when IFP status had already been granted before the PLRA's enactment.
2. The imminent-danger exception to § 1915(g) is determined by the conditions the prisoner faced when the complaint was filed, not by danger alleged to have existed only at an earlier or later time.
3. Plaintiff was not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis because he was subject to the three-strikes provision and failed to show that the imminent-danger exception applied.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Canell v. Lightner overruled or displaced Tierney v. Kupers concerning whether dismissals occurring before the PLRA's enactment may qualify as strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
2. Whether Plaintiff established the imminent-danger exception to the PLRA's three-strikes rule based on alleged danger occurring before or after the filing of the complaint.
3. Whether the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations denying in forma pauperis status should be adopted after de novo review.

Disposition

other