descrybe logo
You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

John J. McKibben v. Walt Parsons, Matt Lindvall, Andrew McDonald Dana Delany, Terry Halford, Peter Michaelson, Janet Folsom, Joseph Bennett, Tim Mienert, Jay Trombetta Warren Humble, Carol Jenny, Weldon McDonald Carol McDonald Dan Rupp, Jr. James Farenholtz, Beth Krulewitch, Mrs. James Farenholtz, Individually and in Their Official Capacities

Citations: 120 F.3d 271; 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 27481; 1997 WL 440470Docket: 96-1468

Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; August 5, 1997; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The case involves an appeal by a plaintiff who filed a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against eighteen individuals associated with his 1991 conviction for second-degree sexual assault. The plaintiff alleged a conspiracy against him; however, the complaint was characterized as an incoherent series of accusations lacking substantive evidence. A magistrate judge recommended dismissal with prejudice, deeming the claims frivolous and malicious under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). The district court adopted this recommendation, and the appellate court affirmed the dismissal without oral argument. The affirmation invokes the 'three strikes' rule of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), limiting the plaintiff's ability to file future lawsuits in forma pauperis due to prior dismissals. Despite the complaint being filed before the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), the court held that applying the 'three strikes' provision was not retroactively unjust. The order and judgment are not binding precedent except under certain legal doctrines. Consequently, the plaintiff's claims were dismissed, reinforcing procedural barriers against frivolous inmate filings.

Legal Issues Addressed

Conspiracy and Constitutional Rights Violation Claims

Application: The magistrate judge found the plaintiff's conspiracy claims unsubstantiated, lacking evidence of any constitutional rights violations.

Reasoning: A magistrate judge concluded that McKibben failed to demonstrate any conspiracy or constitutional rights violation, characterizing his claims as retaliatory.

Dismissal for Frivolous Claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)

Application: The district court dismissed the plaintiff's complaint with prejudice, considering it frivolous and malicious as per 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).

Reasoning: The district court adopted this recommendation, labeling the case frivolous.

Non-Retroactivity of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA)

Application: The application of the 'three strikes' provision to the plaintiff's case, filed before the enactment of the PLRA, does not violate principles of retroactivity.

Reasoning: Although McKibben's complaint was filed before the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) was enacted, dismissing it under this provision does not violate retroactivity principles.

Three Strikes Provision under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)

Application: The appellate court's affirmation of the dismissal as frivolous contributes to the 'three strikes' rule, limiting future in forma pauperis filings by the plaintiff.

Reasoning: This ruling triggers the 'three strikes' provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which restricts future in forma pauperis filings for inmates with three or more prior dismissals for frivolous claims or failure to state a claim.