Chris Jacobs v. The Press

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin denied Chris Jacobs leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), finding that he had accumulated at least three qualifying dismissals and had not alleged imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court also concluded that the complaint was deficient because it did not establish diversity jurisdiction and the defamation claims appeared barred by Wisconsin's statute of limitations. The case was dismissed and the clerk was directed to enter judgment and close the case.

Holdings

1. A prisoner with at least three prior actions or appeals dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim may not proceed in forma pauperis unless the complaint shows that the prisoner was under imminent danger of serious physical injury when the action was filed. Jacobs had at least three qualifying strikes and therefore was barred from proceeding in forma pauperis.
2. The imminent-danger exception requires an allegation of a physical injury that is imminent or occurring when the complaint is filed and a showing that the threat or condition causing the injury is real and proximate. Defamation allegations alone do not satisfy that standard.
3. Even if Jacobs could proceed in forma pauperis, dismissal was appropriate because the complaint did not clearly establish diversity of citizenship and the alleged defamation, occurring before the 1998 conviction, was outside Wisconsin's two-year limitations period for intentional torts.
4. Although courts generally caution against dismissing an unrepresented plaintiff's case without an opportunity to amend, no amendment opportunity was required because the complaint could not plausibly state a timely claim for relief.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Jacobs, having accumulated at least three qualifying prior dismissals, could proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
2. Whether Jacobs's allegations established that he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
3. Whether the complaint could proceed despite uncertainty concerning diversity of citizenship and the applicable statute of limitations.
4. Whether dismissal without an opportunity to amend was appropriate.

Disposition

dismissed