Judges: Per Curiam
Filed: Dec. 02, 2010
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted November 23, 2010* Decided December 2, 2010 Before MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge No. 09 1365 DAVID M. JONES, Appeal from the United States District Plaintiff Appellant, Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division. v. No. 3:08cv545 HOW
Summary: NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted November 23, 2010* Decided December 2, 2010 Before MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge No. 09 1365 DAVID M. JONES, Appeal from the United States District Plaintiff Appellant, Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division. v. No. 3:08cv545 HOWA..
More
NONPRECEDENTIALȱDISPOSITION
Toȱbeȱcitedȱonlyȱinȱaccordanceȱwith
ȱFed.ȱR.ȱApp.ȱP.ȱ32.1
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
SubmittedȱNovemberȱ23,ȱ2010*
DecidedȱDecemberȱ2,ȱ2010
Before
MICHAELȱS.ȱKANNE,ȱCircuitȱJudge
TERENCEȱT.ȱEVANS,ȱCircuitȱJudge
DAVIDȱF.ȱHAMILTON,ȱCircuitȱJudge
ȱȱȱ
No.ȱ09Ȭ1365
DAVIDȱM.ȱJONES, AppealȱfromȱtheȱUnitedȱStatesȱDistrict
PlaintiffȬAppellant, CourtȱforȱtheȱNorthernȱDistrictȱofȱIndiana,
FortȱWayneȱDivision.
v.
No.ȱ3:08cv545
HOWARDȱMORTON,ȱetȱal.,ȱ
DefendantsȬAppellees.ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ TheresaȱL.ȱSpringmann,
Judge.
OȱRȱDȱEȱR
DavidȱJonesȱfiledȱsuitȱunderȱ42ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1983ȱclaimingȱthatȱprisonȱofficialsȱhaveȱbeen
deliberatelyȱindifferentȱtoȱthreatsȱagainstȱhimȱfromȱgangȱmembersȱatȱtheȱIndianaȱState
Prison.ȱȱTheȱdistrictȱcourtȱdirectedȱJonesȱtoȱprepayȱtheȱentireȱfilingȱfeeȱafterȱconcludingȱthat
heȱpreviouslyȱincurredȱthreeȱstrikesȱforȱfilingȱfrivolousȱlitigationȱandȱwasȱnotȱinȱimminent
*
ȱ Theȱ defendantsȱ wereȱ notȱ servedȱ withȱ processȱ inȱ theȱ districtȱ courtȱ andȱ areȱ not
participatingȱinȱthisȱappeal.ȱȱAfterȱexaminingȱtheȱappellant’sȱbriefȱandȱtheȱrecord,ȱweȱhave
concludedȱthatȱoralȱargumentȱisȱunnecessary.ȱȱThus,ȱtheȱappealȱisȱsubmittedȱonȱtheȱbriefȱand
theȱrecord.ȱȱSeeȱFED.ȱR.ȱAPP.ȱP.ȱ34(a)(2)(c).
No.ȱ09Ȭ1365 Pageȱ2
danger.ȱȱSeeȱ28ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1915(g).ȱȱWhenȱJonesȱdidȱnotȱpay,ȱtheȱcourtȱdismissedȱtheȱaction,
andȱJonesȱnowȱappeals.ȱȱInȱlightȱofȱourȱrecentȱdecisionȱinȱTurleyȱv.ȱGaetz,ȱNo.ȱ09Ȭ3847,ȱ2010
WLȱ4286368ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱNov.ȱ2,ȱ2010),ȱweȱvacateȱtheȱjudgmentȱandȱremandȱforȱfurther
proceedings.ȱ
Accordingȱtoȱtheȱallegationsȱinȱhisȱcomplaint,ȱwhichȱatȱthisȱstageȱweȱmustȱpresume
areȱtrue,ȱseeȱSantiagoȱv.ȱWalls,ȱ599ȱF.3dȱ749,ȱ756ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2010),ȱJonesȱexperiencedȱaȱpatternȱof
forewarnedȱassaultsȱbyȱgangȱmembersȱthatȱtheȱdefendantsȱignoredȱandȱevenȱinstigated.ȱ
GangȱmembersȱhadȱfirstȱthreatenedȱJonesȱaroundȱJuneȱ2007,ȱbutȱhisȱrequestȱforȱprotective
custodyȱwasȱdenied.ȱȱTheȱdefendantsȱmovedȱhimȱintoȱaȱdormȱwithȱanȱinmateȱheȱpreviously
“hadȱtroubleȱwith.”ȱȱThatȱinmateȱlaterȱrestrainedȱJonesȱatȱknifepointȱwhileȱanotherȱinmate
attackedȱhim.ȱȱForȱreasonsȱnotȱexplainedȱbyȱJones,ȱheȱwasȱlaterȱplacedȱinȱsegregationȱand
toldȱheȱwouldȱremainȱthereȱforȱtwoȱyears,ȱbutȱevenȱinȱsegregationȱtheȱthreatsȱcontinued.ȱ
Jonesȱdoesȱnotȱsayȱexplicitlyȱthatȱtheȱtwoȱassailantsȱandȱtheȱothersȱwhoȱthreatenedȱhimȱwere
gangȱmembers,ȱbutȱheȱdoesȱallegeȱthatȱwhileȱheȱwasȱinȱsegregationȱguardsȱallowedȱa
numberȱofȱgangȱmembersȱintoȱtheȱrecreationȱyardȱsoȱtheyȱcouldȱassaultȱhim.ȱȱTheseȱinmates
stabbedȱhimȱinȱtheȱstomachȱandȱslicedȱhisȱfaceȱwithȱaȱrazor,ȱsendingȱhimȱtoȱtheȱhospitalȱand
causingȱpermanentȱscarring.ȱȱJonesȱonceȱmoreȱrequestedȱprotectiveȱcustodyȱandȱagainȱwas
refused.ȱȱAfterȱhisȱreleaseȱfromȱtheȱhospital,ȱhowever,ȱJonesȱwasȱtransferredȱtoȱWestville
CorrectionalȱFacilityȱforȱtheȱremainderȱofȱhisȱsegregationȱtime.ȱȱWhileȱatȱWestville,ȱJones
suedȱandȱrequestedȱmonetaryȱdamagesȱandȱanȱinjunctionȱtoȱpreventȱhisȱreturnȱtoȱthe
IndianaȱStateȱPrison,ȱwhereȱtheȱgangȱmembersȱwhoȱattackedȱhimȱstillȱwereȱhoused.
Jonesȱalsoȱmovedȱtoȱproceedȱinȱformaȱpauperis.ȱȱTheȱdistrictȱcourtȱdeniedȱthis
requestȱonȱtheȱunderstandingȱthatȱJonesȱhadȱalreadyȱaccumulatedȱthreeȱstrikesȱandȱwasȱnot
inȱ“imminentȱdanger”ȱsoȱasȱtoȱexcuseȱprepaymentȱofȱtheȱfullȱfilingȱfee.ȱȱJonesȱmovedȱfor
reconsideration.ȱȱHeȱarguedȱthatȱheȱwasȱinȱimminentȱdangerȱbecauseȱheȱwasȱscheduledȱto
beȱreturnedȱtoȱtheȱIndianaȱStateȱPrisonȱinȱsevenȱmonthsȱwhenȱhisȱsegregationȱtimeȱended,
andȱthusȱhisȱseparationȱfromȱtheȱgangȱmembersȱwhoȱattackedȱhimȱwasȱonlyȱtemporary.ȱ
TheȱcourtȱreasonedȱthatȱtheȱharmȱJonesȱfearedȱwasȱspeculativeȱratherȱthanȱimminentȱand
deniedȱhisȱmotion.ȱȱIfȱheȱfacedȱaȱrealȱthreatȱinȱtheȱfuture,ȱtheȱcourtȱinformedȱJones,ȱheȱcould
moveȱforȱinjunctiveȱrelief,ȱbutȱinȱtheȱmeantimeȱheȱwasȱobligatedȱtoȱpayȱtheȱentireȱfilingȱfee
inȱadvance.ȱȱTheȱcourtȱlaterȱdismissedȱJones’sȱlawsuitȱwhenȱheȱfailedȱtoȱpay.
Afterȱheȱfiledȱthisȱappeal,ȱJonesȱwasȱmoved—asȱheȱsaidȱwouldȱhappen—backȱtoȱthe
IndianaȱStateȱPrison.ȱȱOnȱthatȱbasisȱweȱgrantedȱhimȱleaveȱtoȱproceedȱinȱformaȱpauperis.ȱ
Jonesȱv.ȱBates,ȱNo.ȱ09Ȭ1365ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱApr.ȱ20,ȱ2010)ȱ(grantingȱJones’sȱmotionȱtoȱreconsider).ȱ
Thisȱappeal,ȱweȱobserved,ȱpresentsȱaȱquestionȱofȱfirstȱimpression:ȱwhetherȱanȱallegationȱthat
anȱinmateȱisȱguaranteedȱtoȱbeȱreturnedȱtoȱsurroundingsȱthatȱwillȱplaceȱhimȱinȱharm’sȱwayȱis
sufficientȱtoȱmeetȱtheȱexceptionȱinȱ§ȱ1915(g)ȱforȱimminentȱdanger.ȱȱId.ȱȱJonesȱmaintainsȱthat,
No.ȱ09Ȭ1365 Pageȱ3
atȱtheȱtimeȱheȱfiledȱhisȱcomplaint,ȱheȱknewȱwithȱreasonableȱcertaintyȱthatȱheȱwouldȱbeȱsent
backȱtoȱtheȱIndianaȱStateȱPrison.ȱȱHeȱalsoȱarguesȱthatȱtheȱstringȱofȱthreatsȱandȱtheȱassaults
forecastȱbyȱthoseȱthreatsȱestablishedȱwithȱsufficientȱprobabilityȱthatȱimminentȱdanger
awaitedȱhimȱthere.ȱȱ
Weȱareȱinclinedȱtoȱagree.ȱȱTheȱtimingȱofȱimminentȱdangerȱisȱrelative,ȱparticularly
givenȱtheȱpaceȱofȱlitigation.ȱȱWeȱhaveȱcautionedȱagainstȱaȱ“chimerical”ȱinterpretationȱof
imminentȱdanger;ȱtheȱrelevantȱtimeȱframeȱisȱnotȱlimitedȱtoȱtheȱexactȱmomentȱanȱinmate
facesȱassault.ȱȱLewisȱv.ȱSullivan,ȱ279ȱF.3dȱ526,ȱ531ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2002).ȱȱButȱeventsȱhaveȱovertaken
thisȱappeal.ȱȱSectionȱ1915(g)ȱprovidesȱthatȱaȱprisonerȱincursȱaȱstrikeȱforȱbringingȱ“anȱaction
orȱappealȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱthatȱwasȱdismissedȱonȱtheȱgroundsȱthatȱitȱisȱfrivolous,ȱmalicious,ȱorȱfailsȱto
stateȱaȱclaimȱuponȱwhichȱreliefȱmayȱbeȱgranted.”ȱȱWhenȱtheȱdistrictȱcourtȱconcludedȱthat
Jonesȱhadȱalreadyȱaccumulatedȱthreeȱstrikes,ȱtheȱcourtȱcitedȱthreeȱofȱhisȱpriorȱlawsuits:ȱJones
v.ȱClark,ȱIP98ȬCȬ157ȱ(S.D.ȱInd.ȱMarchȱ4,ȱ1998);ȱJonesȱv.ȱMaxey,ȱIP98ȬCȬ910ȱ(S.D.ȱInd.ȱOct.ȱ2,
1998);ȱandȱJonesȱv.ȱRichwine,ȱ1:06ȬCVȬ162ȱ(S.D.ȱInd.ȱApr.ȱ25,ȱ2006).ȱȱCountingȱtheȱfirstȱtwo
casesȱasȱstrikesȱdoesȱnotȱseemȱproblematicȱbecauseȱbothȱwereȱdismissedȱinȱtheirȱentiretyȱat
screening.ȱȱYetȱtheȱthirdȱcase,ȱweȱnowȱknow,ȱdidȱnotȱincurȱaȱstrike.
TheȱdistrictȱcourtȱinȱRichwineȱdismissedȱseveralȱclaimsȱandȱdefendantsȱfromȱthe
complaintȱatȱscreeningȱandȱlaterȱgrantedȱsummaryȱjudgmentȱforȱtheȱremainingȱdefendants.ȱ
InȱcountingȱthisȱlawsuitȱasȱJones’sȱthirdȱstrike,ȱtheȱdistrictȱcourtȱreadȱGeorgeȱv.ȱSmith,ȱ507
F.3dȱ605,ȱ607Ȭ08ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2007),ȱtoȱholdȱthatȱaȱprisoner’sȱlawsuitȱincursȱaȱstrikeȱifȱevenȱone
claimȱisȱdismissedȱonȱaȱgroundȱlistedȱinȱ§ȱ1915(g),ȱnoȱmatterȱhowȱmanyȱclaimsȱareȱincluded
inȱtheȱcomplaint.ȱȱEarlierȱthisȱmonth,ȱhowever,ȱweȱclarifiedȱthatȱGeorgeȱdoesȱnotȱsupportȱthis
contention.ȱȱRather,ȱprisonersȱincurȱaȱstrikeȱonlyȱwhenȱaȱ“caseȱisȱdismissedȱinȱitsȱentirety
basedȱonȱtheȱgroundsȱlistedȱinȱ§ȱ1915(g).”ȱȱTurley,ȱ2010ȱWLȱ4286368,ȱatȱ*7.ȱȱTheȱdistrictȱcourt,
withoutȱtheȱbenefitȱofȱTurley,ȱunderstandablyȱinterpretedȱGeorgeȱasȱitȱdid.ȱȱButȱonlyȱpartȱof
Jones’sȱcaseȱinȱRichwineȱwasȱdismissedȱatȱscreening,ȱandȱgivenȱourȱholdingȱinȱTurley,ȱheȱdid
notȱincurȱaȱthirdȱstrikeȱforȱthatȱsuit.ȱȱOurȱownȱsearch,ȱmoreover,ȱhasȱnotȱuncoveredȱany
otherȱlawsuitȱinȱwhichȱJonesȱincurredȱaȱstrike,ȱandȱthusȱtheȱdistrictȱcourtȱerredȱin
concludingȱthatȱtheȱ“threeȱstrikes”ȱprovisionȱappliedȱtoȱhim.ȱȱAndȱsinceȱJonesȱdoesȱnotȱhave
threeȱstrikes,ȱtheȱquestionȱofȱimminentȱdangerȱisȱmoot.ȱ
TheȱjudgmentȱisȱVACATED,ȱandȱtheȱcaseȱisȱREMANDEDȱforȱfurtherȱproceedings.
