United States District Court, D. Connecticut
A. BOLDEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Ramos, currently incarcerated at MacDougal-Walker
Correctional Institution in Suffield, Connecticut, and
proceeding pro se, sued for constitutional violations under
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Complaint, ECF No. 1. On the same day,
Mr. Ramos moved to proceed in forma pauperis, Motion
for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2.
February 15, 2019, Magistrate Judge Garfinkel filed a notice
of insufficiency regarding the in forma pauperis
motion. Notice to petitioner re: Insufficiency, ECF No. 6. On
February 27, 2019, Mr. Ramos then filed an amended motion for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Motion for Leave
to Proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 7.
March 5, 2019, Magistrate Judge Garfinkel denied the first
motion to proceed in forma pauperis and granted the
second motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Order,
ECF No. 9.
further review, however, the Court concludes that in
forma pauperis status was improvidently granted. The
Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) amended the
statute governing proceedings filed in forma
pauperis. In relevant part, Section 804(d) of the Prison
Litigation Reform Act amended 28 U.S.C. § 1915 by adding
the following subsection:
(g) In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or
appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding under this
section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions,
while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an
action or appeal in a court of the United States that was
dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,
unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious
See Akassy v. Hardy, 887 F.3d 91, 93 (2d Cir. 2018)
(“the PLRA contains a ‘three-strikes' rule
that bars prisoners from proceeding IFP if they have a
history of filing frivolous or malicious lawsuits,' with
an exception provided for a prisoner who is in imminent
danger of serious physical injury.” (quoting Pettus
v. Morgenthau, 554 F.3d 293, 296 (2d Cir. 2009)). This
provision requires the denial of Mr. Ramos' motion to
proceed in forma pauperis in this case.
Ramos has had three cases or appeals dismissed as frivolous.
See Ramos v. City of Norwich, 17-cv-237 (VAB)
(dismissed Apr. 14, 2017); Ramos v. Semple,
18-cv-583 (VAB) (dismissed Aug. 28, 2018); and Ramos v.
Malloy, 18-cv-1669 (KAD) (dismissed Nov. 15, 2018).
the three-strikes provision applies in this case, Mr. Ramos
may not bring the present action without payment of the
filing fee absent allegations of “imminent danger of
serious physical injury.” Akassy, 887 F.3d at
96. Further, the imminent danger must be related to the
unlawful conduct alleged in the complaint. Id.
(“[A]s the ‘unmistakable purpose' of the
imminent-danger exception to the three-strikes bar ‘is
to permit an indigent three-strikes prisoner to proceed IFP
in order to obtain a judicial remedy for an imminent
danger,' ‘there must be a nexus between the
imminent danger a three-strikes prisoner alleges to obtain
IFP status and the legal claims asserted in his
complaint.'” (quoting Pettus, 554 F.3d at
proceed without prepayment of the filing fee, Mr. Ramos must
meet two requirements. He must show (1) the imminent danger
of serious physical injury he alleges is fairly traceable to
unlawful conduct alleged in the complaint and (2) that a
favorable judicial outcome would redress the injury. See
Pettus, 554 F.3d. at 296-97. In addition, the
danger of imminent harm must be present at the time the
complaint is filed. See Id. at 296; see also
Coleman v. Tollefson, 135 S.Ct. 1759, 1764, 1761 (2015)
(endorsing a literal reading of three-strikes provision and
explaining that when inmate “has accumulated three
prior dismissals on statutorily enumerated grounds, ”
“a court may not afford him in forma pauperis
status with respect to his additional civil actions”).
the Complaint raises claims relating to improper handling of
incoming or outgoing mail and failure to properly investigate
grievances. The defendants are Commissioner of Correction,
Warden Mulligan, Lieutenant Roy, and Jessica Bennett. And Mr.
Ramos alleges no facts showing that he was in danger of
serious physical injury from any defendant at the time he
filed the complaint. Mr. Ramos therefore fails to meet the
order granting Mr. Ramos leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, ECF No. 9, is hereby VACATED.
Mr. Ramos previous motions to proceed in forma
pauperis, ECF No. 2, 7, are DENIED. All
further proceedings in this matter shall be held in abeyance
for twenty days pending Mr. Ramos' delivery of the filing
fee in the amount of $400.00 (cash, bank check or money order
made payable to the Clerk of Court) to the Clerk's
Office, 915 Lafayette Boulevard, Bridgeport, CT 06604.
to tender the filing fee within twenty days
from the date of this Order will result in the dismissal of