HOYE v. DEPT OF CORRECTIONS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JOHNSTOWN DIVISION

NATHAN HOYE, ) Civil Action No. 3:25-cv-00244

)

Plaintiff, )

) United States Magistrate Judge

vs. ) Christopher B. Brown

)

DEPT OF CORRECTIONS, )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION ON

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS,1

ECF NO. 5

Christopher B. Brown, United States Magistrate Judge

Plaintiff, Nathan Hoye, is a state prisoner in the custody of the Pennsylvania

Department of Corrections. He is currently incarcerated at SCI-Somerset. Before

the Court is Hoye’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP motion”).

ECF No. 9. For the reasons below, the motion will be denied in accordance with 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g) and this action will be dismissed without prejudice to Hoye

reopening it by paying the full statutory and administrative filing fees totaling

$405.00.2

1 A motion to proceed in forma pauperis is a non-dispositive motion and appropriately decided

by a federal magistrate judge. See Prater v. Dep’t of Corr., 76 F.4th 184, 195-98 (3d Cir. 2023)

(concluding an IFP motion is a non-dispositive pretrial motion and, as such, magistrate judges

maintain jurisdiction to decide a IFP motion).

2 The filing fee is $350.00 plus a $55.00 administrative fee, for a total of $405.00. See

https://www.pawd.uscourts.gov/fee-schedule.

I. Factual Background

Hoye initiated this case on August 5, 2025, by filing a civil rights complaint

without paying the filing fee or filing a motion for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis (“IFP Motion). ECF No. 1. He submitted an IFP Motion on August 21,

2025, ECF No. 2, but because the IFP Motion was deficient, it was denied without

prejudice and Hoye was instructed to either tender to the Clerk of Court the

appropriate filing fee or submit a completed application to proceed in forma

pauperis. ECF No. 3. On September 5, 2025, Hoye submitted the instant IFP

motion, along with his prisoner trust fund account statement. ECF Nos. 4 and 5.

Hoye is a “frequent filer” of complaints. Since January of 2017, Hoye has

filed approximately 50 civil rights cases, with approximately 11 of those cases

containing the same or similar allegations:3 he has a “live mouse” in his stomach, he

needs surgery to remove the mouse, and the medical staff will not provide

appropriate medical treatment. Hoye is “seek[ing] a court order for surgery[.]” ECF

No. 1 at 4.

II. The Prison Litigation Reform Act and the Three Strikes Rule

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

3 See Civil Action Nos. 17-0162 (tape worms and parasites in stomach), 17-0219 (parasites,

tapeworm, and mice in stomach), 18-0800 (mice and parasites in stomach), 18-1028 (mice in

stomach, rectum, and feet), 18-1254 (tapeworm and mice in stomach), 18-1392 (mice in rectum), 19-

0634 (mice in stomach, rectum, and both feet), 19-1308 (mouse in stomach), 19-1400 (mouse in

stomach), 3:21-0026 (mouse in stomach); 3:24-cv-0265 (mouse in stomach) and 3:25-cv-0244 (mouse

in stomach and rectum).

their indigence. Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307, 312 (3d Cir.) (en banc)

(internal quotation marks omitted), cert denied, 533 U.S. 953 (2001). “[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) (internal citation omitted),

abrogated in part on other grounds by Coleman v. Tollefson, 575 U.S. 532 (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). Thus, under the PLRA, prisoners with three prior strikes can

proceed in forma pauperis only if they are 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, 590 U.S. –,

140 S. Ct. 1721, 1724 (2020). “[M]ixed dismissals – where a district court dismisses

a prisoner’s federal claims on grounds enumerated in § 1915(g) and declines to

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the prisoner’s state law claims” do not count

as strikes. Talley v. Wetzel, 15 F.4th 275, 279 (3d Cir. 2021).

Prisoners with three strikes who cannot satisfy the imminent danger

exception are not barred from filing additional federal actions, rather they are

denied the privilege of proceeding in forma pauperis and must pay the requisite

filing fee in full prior to commencing a new action. Abdul-Akbar, 239 F.3d at 314.

Thus, when denying or revoking a prisoner’s in forma pauperis status because of the

accrual of three strikes, the Court must determine what strikes the prisoner

accrued prior to initiating the action immediately before the Court. Gibbs v. Ryan,

160 F.3d 160, 162 (3d Cir. 1998). If determined to have three qualifying strikes to

their name, then the Court must consider whether the prisoner qualifies for the

“imminent danger” exception.

When deciding whether a prisoner meets the “imminent danger” exception, a

Court must examine the situation faced by the prisoner at the time of the filing of

the complaint, and a showing of danger in the past is insufficient to demonstrate

“imminent danger.” Abdul–Akbar, 239 F.3d at 312. Allegations of imminent danger

must be evaluated in accordance with the liberal pleading standard applicable to

pro se litigants, although the Court need not credit “fantastic or delusional”

allegations that “rise to the level of the ‘irrational or wholly incredible.’” Gibbs v.

Cross, 160 F.3d 962, 966–67 (3d Cir. 1998) (citation omitted), overruled on other

grounds by Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 207 (3d Cir. 2001).

III. Hoye Has At Least Three Qualifying Strikes

The Court takes judicial notice of the fact Hoye has at least three qualifying

strikes within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g):

(1) Nathan Rowshawn Hoye v. Eli A. Zlokas, No. 2:17-cv-0021 (W.D.Pa.)

(case initiated on January 5, 2017; all claims in the complaint dismissed with

prejudice on April 13, 2017, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A);

(2) Nathan Hoye v. SCI Greene Prison Medical Department, Dr. Ms. Pillia,

Dr. Valley, Dr. Raj, No. 2:17-cv-0162 (W.D.Pa.) (case initiated on February 3, 2017;

all claims in the complaint dismissed with prejudice on April 13, 2017, for failure to

state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)

and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A);

(3) Nathan Hoye v. Mr. Eli Zlokas, Attorney at Law, and Dwayne Woodruff,

Honorable Judge Allegheny County, No. 2:17-cv-0270 (W.D.Pa.) (case initiated on

March 1, 2017; all claims in the complaint dismissed with prejudice on April 12,

2017, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); and

(4) Nathan Hoye v. SCI Camp Hill Prison, et al, No. 2:17-cv-0452 (W.D.Pa.)

(case initiated April 10, 2017; all claims in the complaint dismissed with prejudice

on May 8, 2017, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A).

IV. Hoye Does Not Satisfy The Imminent Danger Exception

Applying the above legal principles, and reviewing the allegations of the

Complaint, the Court finds Hoye’s allegations are insufficient to satisfy the

imminent danger requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The Court of Appeals for the

Third Circuit has instructed the Court may “deny leave to proceed IFP when a

prisoner’s claims of imminent danger are conclusory or ridiculous.” Ball, 726 F.3d

at 468 (citation omitted). “A court need not accept all allegations of injury” or

“accept without question the truth of the plaintiff’s allegations.” Brown v. City of

Philadelphia, 331 F. App’x 898, 900 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 558 U.S. 999 (2009). “To

the contrary, a court may discredit ‘factual claims of imminent danger that are

‘clearly baseless.’’’ Id. (quoting Gibbs v. Cross, 160 F.3d 962, 967 (3d Cir. 1998)).

Hoye’s Complaint alleges the following:

Mouse in stomach and rectum. DOC medical violated my

8th amendment constitutional right to have surgery to

remove mouse out stomach/rectum.

ECF No. 1 at 4. The allegations in the instant Complaint at best can be described

as fanciful, fantastic, and/or delusional.

V. Conclusion

For these reasons, the Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis will be

denied in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and this action will be dismissed

without prejudice to Hoye reopening it by paying the full statutory and

administrative filing fees, totaling $405.00.4 A separate Order follows.

DATED this 10th day of September, 2025.

BY THE COURT:

/s Christopher B. Brown

Christopher B. Brown

United States Magistrate Judge

cc: NATHAN HOYE

NX8604

SCI SOMERSET

1590 Walters Mill Road

Somerset, PA 15510

(via U.S. First Class Mail)

4 Hoye is advised that if he pays the filing fee, the case will still be subject to statutory

screening under § 1915A because he is a prisoner. Thus, the Court may dismiss the complaint, or

any portion of the complaint, if it is determined that the complaint is frivolous, malicious, or fails to

state a claim upon which relief may be granted. If his complaint is dismissed under § 1915A, Hoye

will not be entitled to the return of his $405.00 filing fee.