Jullian Huffman v. Dr. Amit Shah, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia dismissed Jullian Huffman’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action without prejudice under the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s three-strikes provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The court held that Huffman had not alleged facts showing imminent danger of serious physical injury and denied his motion for issuance of a subpoena as moot.

Holdings

1. A prisoner with three or more prior actions or appeals dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim may proceed in forma pauperis only by alleging facts showing that he faced an imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. Huffman's conclusory allegation that defendants failed to prescribe desired medication did not satisfy that requirement.
2. Because Huffman was ineligible to proceed in forma pauperis and had not prepaid the required filing and administrative fees, the complaint was dismissed without prejudice.
3. Huffman's motion for issuance of a subpoena was denied as moot following dismissal of the complaint.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Huffman qualified to proceed in forma pauperis under the imminent-danger exception to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) despite having three or more prior qualifying dismissals.
2. Whether the complaint should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prepay the filing and administrative fees.
3. Whether Huffman's motion for issuance of a subpoena should be denied as moot after dismissal of the action.

Disposition

dismissed