United States District Court, D. Connecticut
DARRELL B. GIPSON, Plaintiff,
R. LABONTE, et al., Defendants.
RULING ON PENDING MOTIONS
A. BOLDEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
October 19, 2018, Darrell B. Gipson (“Plaintiff”)
moved to amend the Complaint in this action, for appointment
of pro bono counsel to represent him, and to change
reasons explained below, the Court DENIES
the motion to change his address as moot,
VACATES the previous order granting Mr.
Gipson leave to proceed in forma pauperis,
DENIES Mr. Gipson's motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, and
DENIES Mr. Gipson's motion to amend and
motion for appointment of counsel.
October 11, 2018, Mr. Gipson, incarcerated at the Hartford
Correctional Center (“Hartford Correctional”),
sued Health Services Administrator LaBonte and three medical
staff members who work at Hartford Correctional, John Does
1-2 and Jane Doe, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Complaint,
dated Oct. 11, 2018, ECF No. 1.
same day, Mr. Gipson moved for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis, dated Oct. 11, 2018, ECF No. 2.
October 16, 2018, the Court referred Mr. Gipson's motion
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis to Magistrate
Judge William I. Garfinkel. Order, dated Oct. 16, 2018, ECF
October 19, 2018, Mr. Gipson moved to amend the Complaint in
this action, for appointment of pro bono counsel,
and to change his address. Motion to Amend the Complaint,
dated Oct. 19, 2018 (“Mot. to Amend”), ECF No. 8;
Motion for Appointment of Counsel, dated Oct. 19, 2018, ECF
No. 9, Motion for Change of Address, dated Oct. 19, 2018, ECF
No. 10. In his motion to change his address, Mr. Gipson
stated that he was set to be released from Hartford
Correctional on November 4, 2018 and provided the Court with
his new address. See Motion for Change of Address at
November 14, 2018, Magistrate Judge Garfinkel granted Mr.
Gipson's application to proceed in forma
pauperis. Order, dated Nov. 14, 2018, ECF No. 12.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
28 U.S.C. § 1915, indigent plaintiffs may move for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis, i.e., “without
prepayment of [filing] fees or security therefor.” 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). But the statute also limits the
Court's authority to waive payment of fees for prisoners
through the “three strikes” provision, which
provides that “[i]n 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 physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. §
a prisoner who has had three or more actions dismissed on
grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a
claim may not bring a civil action without prepayment of fees
absent allegations of “imminent danger of serious
physical injury.” See Pettus v. Morgenthau,
554 F.3d 293, 297 (2d Cir. 2009) (“indigent
three-strikes prisoner [may] proceed IFP in order to obtain a
judicial remedy for an imminent danger”). To satisfy
this standard, the prisoner must show: (1) that he is subject
to imminent danger of serious physical injury which is fairly
traceable to unlawful conduct alleged in the complaint; and
(2) that a favorable judicial outcome would redress the
injury. See Id. at 296-97.
initial matter, because the Clerk of the Court has already
changed Mr. Gipson's address to reflect his new,
post-release address, Mr. ...