JOHNSON v. NUNEZ (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.2021-07-02No. No. 21-1108

Summary · law.co

Holding. The Court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Johnson's lawsuit for failure to comply with previously imposed filing restrictions and denied his motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.

Jabari Johnson, an inmate proceeding without counsel, appealed the dismissal of his lawsuit by the district court. The district court had previously imposed filing restrictions on Johnson due to his pattern of abusive litigation, having filed over 100 lawsuits in the district court and more than 30 appeals in the appellate court. Johnson failed to comply with the court-ordered requirements before filing his latest complaint, which alleged deprivation of a medically necessary wheelchair, denial of ADA-mandated shower access, limited law library access, and statements by officials that endangered his safety.

The appellate court reviewed the district court's dismissal under an abuse-of-discretion standard and found no error. Johnson had received clear notice of the filing restrictions, which required him to either prepay the filing fee or obtain court approval to proceed in forma pauperis, and to provide a notarized affidavit that the suit was not filed to harass defendants. Because Johnson did not comply with these requirements, the district court properly dismissed his complaint. The appellate court also denied Johnson's request to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, finding that while prison medical deprivation can constitute imminent danger under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Johnson's failure to comply with district court orders negated any basis for appellate relief.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether district court properly dismissed complaint for violation of filing restrictions
Whether prisoner met imminent danger exception to Prison Litigation Reform Act prepayment requirement
Standards for judicial sanctions against abusive litigants

Procedural posture

The appellant, a pro se Colorado prisoner, appealed the district court's dismissal of his complaint for violating court-imposed filing restrictions.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

ORDER AND JUDGMENT **

Jabari J. Johnson, a Colorado prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals from the district courts dismissal of his lawsuit for failure to comply with previously imposed filing restrictions. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.

As a different panel of this court noted in a recent order affirming the dismissal of substantially similar claims, Mr. Johnson has filed more than 100 lawsuits in the district court and more than 30 appeals in this court. See Johnson v. Little, Nos. 20-1335, 20-1370, No-1389, ––– Fed.Appx. ––––, ––––, ––––, 2021 WL 1561337, at *1, *5 (10th Cir. Apr. 21, 2021). Those actions involved claims that, among other things, prison officials deprived Mr. Johnson of a medically necessary wheelchair, thereby forcing him to “scoot and crawl on the floor.” Id. at –––– – ––––, 2021 WL 1561337, at *2–3.

Mr. Johnson has renewed this claim in the instant lawsuit, contending that prison officials have deprived him of a medically necessary wheelchair, denied him access to an ADA-mandated shower cell, limited his access to law library materials, and told other inmates that Mr. Johnson was “a child molester and snitch,” thereby endangering his safety. 1 R. 7. The district court dismissed the lawsuit on the basis that Mr. Johnson failed to comply with filing restrictions the court imposed in March 2020 due to Mr. Johnsons abusive litigation. Johnson v. Nunez, No. 21-cv-00730-GPG, ECF No. 3 (D. Colo. Mar. 15, 2021) (unpublished); see also Johnson v. Hawkins, No. 19-cv-03730-LTB, ECF No. 3 at 10–11 (D. Colo. Mar. 4, 2020) (unpublished) (setting out restrictions).

“We review for an abuse of discretion the district courts decision to impose the sanction of dismissal for failure to follow court orders and rules.” Gripe v. City of Enid, 312 F.3d 1184, 1188 (10th Cir. 2002).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Mr. Johnsons claims for failure to comply with the filing restrictions. Mr. Johnson has received ample notice of the filing restrictions against him, which include requirements that before filing any action he (1) either prepay the filing fee or receive approval from the district court to proceed IFP and (2) provide a notarized affidavit that the lawsuit was not instituted to harass defendants. Johnson, No. 19-cv-03730-LTB, ECF No. 3 at 10–11. As the district court noted, Mr. Johnson did not comply with these requirements. The district court therefore acted well within its discretion in dismissing the complaint.

The district court also denied Mr. Johnson leave to proceed IFP on appeal. Because at least three of Mr. Johnsons prior suits have been dismissed as frivolous, he must either prepay costs and fees or demonstrate that he “is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). On April 5, 2021, this court directed Mr. Johnson to show cause why he should not be required to prepay the entire filing fee. On May 26, 2021, Mr. Johnson moved for leave to proceed IFP in this court, arguing that he is under imminent danger of serious injury because he has been denied a doctor-mandated wheelchair and because his lack of access to ADA shower cells has caused open sores on his body.

This court has recognized that the failure to provide a prisoner with a medically necessary wheelchair satisfies the imminent danger exception to the prepayment requirement under the PLRA. Fuller v. Wilcox, 288 F. Appx 509, 511 (10th Cir. 2008) (unpublished). However, that exception does not relieve Mr. Johnson of his obligation to provide a coherent and rational argument as to why the district court erred in dismissing the complaint. Mr. Johnson concedes that he did not comply with the filing restrictions imposed by the district court. As discussed above, this failure justified the district courts dismissal. Accordingly, we deny his motion to proceed IFP and direct Mr. Johnson to pay the full filing fee. We also remind Mr. Johnson of this courts admonition that future appeals from district court cases in which he has made no demonstrable attempt to comply with district court filing restrictions may result in sanctions from this court. See id., 2008 WL 2961388 at *5.

Paul J. Kelly, Jr., Circuit Judge