Reported / Citable
Background
Nicholas Mosquera, a Texas state prisoner, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the judges who presided over his criminal case. He sought $2 million in damages and moved to proceed in forma pauperis.
The court reviewed Mosquera’s litigation history and found at least three prior prisoner actions dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim. Mosquera did not allege facts showing that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed this suit.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Andrew S. Hanen denied Mosquera’s request to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s three-strikes provision. Because Mosquera had accumulated at least three qualifying dismissals and did not satisfy the imminent-danger exception, he could not proceed without prepaying the filing fee.
The court also dismissed the complaint with prejudice under §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b). The claims were frivolous and failed to state a claim because Mosquera sought damages from judges for actions taken in presiding over his criminal case, making the defendants immune from monetary relief. The dismissal counts as Mosquera’s fourth strike or more under § 1915(g).
Key Takeaways
- A prisoner with three prior qualifying dismissals cannot proceed in forma pauperis absent allegations of imminent danger of serious physical injury.
- Judges are immune from damages claims based on their judicial actions in a criminal case.
- A dismissal on these grounds may count as an additional strike under the PLRA.
Why It Matters
The decision applies both the PLRA’s gatekeeping rule and judicial immunity at the screening stage. It illustrates that a prisoner’s inability to use in forma pauperis status does not insulate an independently frivolous complaint from dismissal with prejudice.