# FLUKER v. TRANS UNION, LLC

> District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · April 7, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10840737

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** April 7, 2025
- **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/10840737

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- recognizing that when the plain text of an order dismisses a case based on an enumerated ground, the dismissal counts as a strike even if the underlying analysis hinges on a legal issue that otherwise would not trigger a strike

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ANTONIO LYNN FLUKER : CIVIL ACTION
:
v. : No. 25-0327
:
TRANS UNION, LLC :

MEMORANDUM
Judge Juan R. Sánchez April 7, 2025

Plaintiff Antonio Lynn Fluker, a pro se federal inmate at FCI Schuykill, filed a Complaint
against Trans Union, LLC (ECF No. 2), and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1).
Because Fluker has obtained three prior “strikes” and has not alleged an imminent danger of
serious physical injury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the Court will deny leave to proceed in
forma pauperis and require that Fluker pay the full filing fee if he wishes to continue with the case.
I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
Fluker asserts claims for money damages against TransUnion, LLC (“TransUnion”) for
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Compl. at 7. He contends he submitted
disputes concerning allegedly fraudulent hard inquiries into his consumer credit file, but
TransUnion did not investigate them. Id. at 6. Fluker claims the inaccuracies had adverse effects
on his credit score and worthiness, and that TransUnion’s misreporting to third parties caused him
to be denied credit and the closure of an existing account. Id.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, allows indigent litigants to bring an action
in federal court without prepayment of filing fees, ensuring that such persons are not prevented
“from pursuing meaningful litigation” because of their indigence. Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 239
F.3d 307, 312 (3d Cir. 2001) (en banc) (internal quotation marks omitted). But, as Congress has
recognized, people who obtain in forma pauperis status are “not subject to the same economic
disincentives to filing meritless cases that face other civil litigants,” and thus the provision is
susceptible to abuse. Id. (citing 141 Cong. Rec. S7498-01, S7526 (daily ed. May 25, 1995)).

“[I]n response to the tide of substantively meritless prisoner claims that have swamped the
federal courts,” Congress enacted the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) in 1996. Ball v.
Famiglio, 726 F.3d 448, 452 (3d Cir. 2013) (quoting Shane v. Fauver, 213 F.3d 113, 117 (3d Cir.
2000)) (internal quotation marks omitted), abrogated in part on other grounds by Coleman v.
Tollefson, 135 S. Ct. 1759, 1763 (2015). Among other things, the PLRA implemented the so-
called “three strikes rule,” which provides:
In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil action
or proceeding under this section 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.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (emphasis added). Put more simply, a prisoner with three prior “strikes” can
proceed in forma pauperis only if he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury.
A strike under § 1915(g) “will accrue only if the entire action or appeal is (1) dismissed
explicitly because it is ‘frivolous,’ ‘malicious,’ or ‘fails to state a claim’ or (2) dismissed pursuant
to a statutory provision or rule that is limited solely to dismissals for such reasons, including (but
not necessarily limited to) 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), or Rule
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Byrd v. Shannon, 715 F.3d 117, 126 (3d Cir.
2013). “A strike-call under Section 1915(g) . . . hinges exclusively on the basis for the dismissal,
regardless of the decision’s prejudicial effect.” Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez, 140 S. Ct. 1721, 1724-
25 (2020), abrogating Millhouse v. Heath, 866 F.3d 152, 161 (3d Cir. 2017). Courts must consider
a pro se prisoner’s allegations of imminent danger “under our liberal pleading rules, construing all
allegations in favor of the complainant.” Gibbs v. Cross, 160 F.3d 962, 966 (3d Cir. 1998).
III. “THREE-STRIKE” ANALYSIS
Fluker has accumulated at least three strikes for purposes of § 1915(g). In Fluker v. Ally

Fin., Inc., No. 22-12536 (E.D. Mich.), Fluker filed a complaint while housed in the Clare County
Jail in Clare, Michigan. In an order entered on December 21, 2023, the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, granted the defendant’s motion
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and dismissed Fluker’s complaint for failure
to state a claim. See Order, No. 22-12536 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 21, 2023). The dismissal of that case
in its entirety for failure to state a claim constitutes a strike under § 1915(g).
In Jones v. Hemingway, No. 23-10842 (E.D. Mich.), Fluker filed a complaint while
incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Milan, Michigan.1 The District Court
granted the defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion and dismissed that complaint. See Order, No. 23-
10842 (E.D. Mich. Jul. 31, 2024). The District Court’s order dismissing the complaint in full for

failure to state a claim constitutes a strike under § 1915(g).
Fluker filed a complaint in Fluker v. Trans Union, LLC, No. 24-12738 (E.D. Mich.), while
incarcerated at FCI Schuylkill in Minersville, Pennsylvania. The District Court entered an order
adopting a Magistrate Judge’s report recommending dismissal of the complaint under Sections
1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1) as frivolous and because it failed to state a claim.2 See Order, No.

1 Fluker brought this civil action with another plaintiff, Ricky L. Jones. See Complaint,
No. 23-10842 at ECF No. 1.

2 The court’s dismissal was based on reasoning that Fluker failed to establish Article III
standing for the same reasons a prior complaint of his failed. See Order, No. 24-12738 (E.D. Mich.
Jan. 7, 2025). Although a dismissal for lack of standing is not a dismissal on an enumerated
ground, the court made clear that its dismissal was for “frivolity and failure to state a claim” under
24-12738 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 7, 2025). The Court dismissed the complaint and closed the case.3 Id.
The dismissal of the case in its entirety on enumerated statutory grounds constitutes another strike.
Because Fluker has accumulated three strikes, he is “out” and can no longer proceed in
forma pauperis in any federal court unless he can show he is in imminent danger of serious

physical injury at the time he brought his Complaint. The “imminent danger” exception to the
three-strikes rule serves as a “safety valve” to ensure that a prisoner is not subject to serious injury
due to his inability to pay a filing fee. Ball, 726 F.3d at 467. It “creates a narrow opening for a
particular type of claim; it does not give prisoners . . . a license to swamp the court with claims
whenever they successfully state a claim of imminent danger.” Brown v. Lyons, 977 F. Supp. 2d
475, 481-82 (E.D. Pa. 2013) (citing Pettus v. Morgenthau, 554 F.3d 293, 297 (2d Cir. 2009)).
“Imminent dangers are those dangers which are about to occur at any moment or are impending.”
Abdul-Akbar, 239 F.3d at 315 (internal quotation marks omitted). Past dangers are not imminent
dangers. See Ball, 726 F.3d at 467. Vague, general, or conclusory allegations are likewise
insufficient to establish that a plaintiff is in imminent danger. Id. Finally, “there must be a nexus

between the imminent danger a three-strikes prisoner alleges to obtain IFP status and the legal

the statutory screening requirements. Id. Since frivolity and failure to state a claim are enumerated
grounds that qualify a dismissal as a strike, this dismissal is appropriately counted. Cf. Ball, 726
F.3d at 460 (recognizing that when the plain text of an order dismisses a case based on an
enumerated ground, the dismissal counts as a strike even if the underlying analysis hinges on a
legal issue that otherwise would not trigger a strike). Notably, frivolity dismissals predicated on
lack of standing have been upheld in the Third Circuit. See Credico v. Unknown Off. for U.S.
Drone Strikes, 537 F. App’x 22 (3d Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (dismissing appeal of district court’s
order dismissing complaint “as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)” because
plaintiff lacked standing to pursue a generalized grievance); Awala v. Wachovia Corp., 156 F.
App'x 527, 528 (3d Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (dismissing appeal as frivolous when district court
dismissed the underlying “complaint as frivolous because Awala failed to allege that the
Defendants were acting under the color of state law and failed to establish standing to sue.”);
3 Fluker filed nearly identical Complaints in the present case and the Trans Union matter
dismissed by the District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Compare Complaint (ECF
No. 1) in No. 24-12738 (E.D. Mich.) with Complaint (ECF No. 2) in No. 25-0327 (E.D. Pa.).
claims asserted in his complaint.” Pettus, 554 F.3d at 297; see also Ball v. Hummel, 577 F. App’x
96, 98 n.1 (3d Cir. 2014) (per curiam). In other words, the claimed imminent danger must relate
to the legal claims the prisoner pursues. Id.; see also Brown v. U.S. Dist. Ct., E. Dist., No. 13-
7229, 2014 WL 1225878, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 25, 2014) (“In short, § 1915(g) requires two things:

the allegation of imminent danger and a claim for relief that if granted will preclude the danger
from becoming a reality.”).
Fluker’s Complaint contains no allegation whatsoever of imminent danger. Indeed, his
Complaint concerns alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act through TransUnion’s
purported failure to investigate inquires on Fluker’s credit report. These allegations do not meet
the imminent danger standard of Section 1915(g). Because there is no suggestion in any of his
claims concerning imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he brought this case, the
Court finds that the imminent danger exception does not apply.
IV. CONCLUSION
Because Fluker is a “three-striker” who is prohibited from proceeding in forma pauperis

unless he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time of filing, and considering
that he was not in imminent danger when he submitted this Complaint, the Court will deny Fluker’s
motion to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Should Fluker desire to
litigate his claims, he must pay the full filing fee in advance. An appropriate Order follows, which
gives Fluker an opportunity to pay the fees in the event he seeks to proceed with this case.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Juan R. Sánchez
Juan R. Sánchez, J.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10840737. Public record. Not legal advice.