Fifth Circuit Calls Denial of Texas Prisoner’s In Forma Pauperis Request “Arbitrary or Erroneous”
When Texas prisoner Larry Donnell Gibbs filed suit in federal court in 2021 against officials with the state Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ), he paid the filing fee and did not ask to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). As a pro se plaintiff, though, Gibbs had no outside counsel to ensure his complaint was served on some Defendants no longer employed at the Estelle Unit. So Gibbs eventually moved for IFP status, which would entitle him to have U.S. Marshals effect service under Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(c)(3). When that motion was denied by the federal court for the Eastern District of Texas, he appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On February 6, 2024, that Court found the lower court’s decision “arbitrary or erroneous.”
Gibbs, 37, alleged that after being repeatedly stabbed by another prisoner in March 2020, two guards—identified as Jackson and Moton—left him to bleed for 45 minutes before rendering assistance. Further, after he filed grievances about this allegedly “negligent response” to his stabbing, three other guards—Jared Oneal, John L. Ruffin and Joe Thomas—twice used or authorized excessive force against him, he said. Those beatings caused “bleeding in his brain which led to a seizure” and paralysis, he claimed, leaving him confined to a wheelchair.
In support of his IFP motion, Gibbs submitted to the district court a copy of his prison trust account, showing a balance of $140.43. A magistrate judge denied his request, finding that 1) his motion was moot because he had already paid the filing fee; 2) the funds in his account were “sufficient” to effect service; and 3) he had not provided needed addresses for Defendants. Gibbs moved for reconsideration, and he then filed an appeal after the district court denied the motion in September 2022.
The Fifth Circuit began its review by noting that paying the filing fee did not moot Gibbs’ subsequent IFP motion because “a person not a pauper at the commencement of a suit may become one during or prior to its prosecution,” as held in Flowers v. Turbine Support Div., 507 F.2d 1242 (5th Cir. 1975).
Further, finding Gibbs’ prison account balance “sufficient” to serve Defendants was arbitrary, the Court said; as Gibbs’ motion for reconsideration stated, it would cost him $450 to effect service without IFP status. Lastly, the Court added, whether Gibbs provided service addresses for Defendants was immaterial, since a determination on a request for IFP status “must be based solely upon economic criteria,” per Watson v. Ault, 525 F.2d 886 (5th Cir. 1976).
Based on these finding, the Court determined that Gibbs had been prejudiced by denial of his IFP motion, so the district court’s judgment was reversed and the case remanded for Gibbs to proceed IFP. See: Gibbs v. Jackson, 92 F. 4th 566 (5th Cir. 2024).
The case then returned to the district court, where Gibbs filed for an emergency injunction on April 15, 2024, seeking to prevent TDCJ from double-celling him, since the earlier stabbing had left him with PTSD and too “jumpy” to sleep in a shared cell. No action had been taken on the request four months later, but PLN will update developments as they are available. See: Gibbs v. Jackson, USDC (E.D. Tex.), Case No. 1:21-cv-00484.