×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
PLRA “Three Strikes” Rule Not Ex Post Facto
The PLRA three strikes provision does not violate the prohibition against Ex Post Facto laws (citing prior decision in Rivera v Allin)
At 1193: The existence of "imminent danger of serious physical injury" is not to be assessed as of the time of filing of the complaint, contra Gibbs v Roman Congress's use of the present tense ("bring" and "is") in the statute shows that past imminent danger is insufficient The court need not decide whether the Eighth Circuit approach (Ashley v. Dilworth--assess as of time of filing of suit) or the Fifth Circuit approach (Banos v. O'Guin--assess as of time of filing in district court, time the litigant seeks to proceed IFP, or time the litigant seeks to appeal and to proceed IFP) is correct, since this plaintiff meets neither standard He complained of an assault but by the time of filing had been placed in administrative confinement
At 1193: "We note that 28 U.S.C. 1915(g) does not deny prisoners the right of access to the courts; it merely requires them to pay the filing fee immediately and in full rather than on an installment plan." See: Medberry v. Butler, 185 F.3d 1189 (11th Cir. 1999).
At 1193: The existence of "imminent danger of serious physical injury" is not to be assessed as of the time of filing of the complaint, contra Gibbs v Roman Congress's use of the present tense ("bring" and "is") in the statute shows that past imminent danger is insufficient The court need not decide whether the Eighth Circuit approach (Ashley v. Dilworth--assess as of time of filing of suit) or the Fifth Circuit approach (Banos v. O'Guin--assess as of time of filing in district court, time the litigant seeks to proceed IFP, or time the litigant seeks to appeal and to proceed IFP) is correct, since this plaintiff meets neither standard He complained of an assault but by the time of filing had been placed in administrative confinement
At 1193: "We note that 28 U.S.C. 1915(g) does not deny prisoners the right of access to the courts; it merely requires them to pay the filing fee immediately and in full rather than on an installment plan." See: Medberry v. Butler, 185 F.3d 1189 (11th Cir. 1999).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Medberry v. Butler
| Year | 1999 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 185 F.3d 1189 (11th Cir. 1999) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
| Injunction Status | N/A |