1915(g)-plus?

Apologies for the delay in updating you on recent cases -- in part this is because I was preparing for oral argument yesterday in the 11th Circuit, before Judges Tjoflat, Black and visiting Judge Ebel from the 10th Circuit, in the case of Miller v. Donald.

The issues on appeal:

• whether the Southern District of Georgia's "sec. 1915(g)-plus" rule barring super-frequent-filers from filing anything IFP, even if they allege imminent danger of serious physical injury (the exception provided under 28 U.S.C. 1915(g)), unless they pay all prior filing fee debts (which, in my client's case, amounted to over $1300); and
• whether the district court could properly determine that a facially valid claim of imminent danger was actually frivolous, based on the plaintiff's prior filing history.

See Barber v. Attorney General, 458 F.Supp. 2d 1378 (S.D. Ga. 2006), for more details about the rule (as well as the 1915(g)-plus-plus rule and the 1915(g)-plus-plus-plus rule).

By way of background: the Eleventh Circuit previously found, in another case Miller brought, that his sec. 1983 and ADA injunctive relief claims survived summary judgment. It ultimately vacated the prior opinion and remanded the case so that Miller could file an amended complaint in light of the companion case of Goodman v. Georgia, which went up to the Supreme Court and reversed the Eleventh Circuit's holding that the 11th Amendment barred his ADA damages claims. (Disclaimer -- BME represented Miller in that 11th Circuit case, and I now represent Miller in the district court. Some good folks at Hunton & Williams now represent Goodman.)

Stay tuned for the outcome of this case...