# Jean-Louis v. Board of Education

> District Court, S.D. New York · May 20, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10360951

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. New York
- **Decided:** May 20, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10360951

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- discussing sanctions courts may impose on vexatious litigants, including “leave of court” requirement

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
JOE W. JEAN-LOUIS,
Plaintiff,
24-CV-3755 (LTS)
-against-
ORDER OF DISMISSAL UNDER
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)
BOARD OF EDUCATION
Defendant.
LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge:
Plaintiff, who is currently detained at the North Infirmary Command on Rikers Island,
brings this action pro se. Because the complaint was not accompanied by the $405.00 in fees
required to file a civil action, the Court assumes that Plaintiff is seeking to proceed in forma
pauperis (“IFP”). Plaintiff is barred, however, from filing any federal civil action IFP while he is
a prisoner. See Jean-Louis v. Mayor City of New York, ECF 1:23-CV-4286, 2 (S.D.N.Y. May 25,
2023) (recognizing Plaintiff as barred under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and listing his “strikes”); Jean-
Louis v. Onafer Nuclear Power Plant, No. 2:12-CV-1071, 2 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2012) (same).
Those decisions relied on the “three-strikes” provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act
(“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which provides that:
[i]n no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action . . . [IFP] 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.
Although Plaintiff has filed this new action seeking IFP status, his complaint does not
show that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury.1 Instead, Plaintiff appears to be

1 An imminent danger is one “existing at the time the complaint is filed.” Malik v.
McGinnis, 293 F.3d 559, 563 (2d Cir. 2002). A danger “that has dissipated by the time complaint
is filed” is not sufficient. Pettus v. Morgenthau, 554 F.3d 293, 296 (2d Cir. 2009).
asserting claims against the New York City Department of Education arising from their alleged
negligence in failing to build underground nuclear fallout shelters in the City’s elementary
schools. (See ECF 1, at 1.) Plaintiff is therefore barred, under Section 1915(g), from bringing this
action IFP.

CONCLUSION
The Court denies Plaintiff’s request to proceed IFP, and dismisses the complaint without
prejudice under the PLRA’s “three-strikes” filing bar.2 See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff remains
barred, under Section 1915(g), from filing any future federal civil action IFP while he is a
prisoner, unless he is under imminent threat of serious physical injury.3 Id.
The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this order
would not be taken in good faith, and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal.
See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
The Court directs the Clerk of Court to enter judgment in this action.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 20, 2024
New York, New York

/s/ Laura Taylor Swain
LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN
Chief United States District Judge

2 Plaintiff may commence a new federal civil action by paying the fees to bring that
action. If Plaintiff does so, that complaint will be reviewed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which
requires the Court to dismiss any civil rights complaint from a prisoner if it “(1) is frivolous,
malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief
from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
3 The court may bar any vexatious litigant (including a nonprisoner) from filing future
civil actions (even if the filing fees are paid) without first obtaining leave from the court. See In
re Martin-Trigona, 9 F.3d 226, 227-30 (2d Cir. 1993) (discussing sanctions courts may impose
on vexatious litigants, including “leave of court” requirement).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10360951. Public record. Not legal advice.