Heimermann, Scott A. v. Litscher, Jon E. ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                              In the
    United States Court of Appeals
    For the Seventh Circuit
    ____________
    No. 02-3667
    SCOTT A. HEIMERMANN,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    JON E. LITSCHER, et al.,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    ____________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Wisconsin.
    No. 02-C-411-C—Barbara B. Crabb, Chief Judge.
    ____________
    SUBMITTED JUNE 25, 2003Œ—DECIDED JULY 18, 2003
    ____________
    Before BAUER, COFFEY, and EVANS, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM. Wisconsin inmate Scott Heimermann has
    filed numerous frivolous lawsuits in the federal courts,
    earning himself three “strikes” under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (g).
    He is thus prohibited from bringing a civil action in forma
    pauperis unless he is “under imminent danger of serious
    Œ
    We granted the appellees’ motion for non-involvement due to
    lack of service in the district court. Accordingly, this appeal has
    been submitted without the filing of a brief by the appellees. After
    examining the appellant’s brief and the record, we conclude that
    oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on
    the appellant’s brief and the record. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    2                                                  No. 02-3667
    physical injury.”1
    In July 2002 Heimermann filed another proposed com-
    plaint, requesting leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
    He devoted the 64-page complaint primarily to contesting
    his murder conviction, alleging that he was framed by
    unspecified officials at the Milwaukee County District
    Attorney’s office and the City of Milwaukee Police De-
    partment, who then conspired with officials at the Wis-
    consin Department of Corrections to prevent him from
    clearing his name. His narrative also told how in 1998
    prison officials recruited him to assist with a “sting”
    operation against a prison guard, but afterwards kept
    him in the general prison population, leaving him open to
    reprisal as a “snitch” and thus in imminent danger of
    serious physical injury. He asked the district court to
    order him transferred to a minimum-security facility or
    released from prison outright. The district court concluded
    that it could not reasonably infer imminent danger
    of serious physical injury from the facts alleged: the
    sting operation had happened four years earlier, and
    Heimermann did not even allege that the target of
    that investigation still worked at the prison. The court
    therefore denied Heimermann’s request for leave to pro-
    ceed in forma pauperis.
    Heimermann requested reconsideration. In his motion,
    he argued that his complaint sufficiently alleged that
    he was in imminent danger of reprisal from guards and
    fellow inmates during the period of the investigation, from
    June 1998 through June 2000. He then argued that “the
    proper focus when examining an inmate’s complaint filed
    1
    He has also been subjected to a series of fines and filing re-
    strictions. See, e.g., Heimermann v. McCaughtry, No. 02-4033 (7th
    Cir. Feb. 4, 2003) (order imposing $5,000 sanction for repeated
    frivolous filings).
    No. 02-3667                                                   3
    pursuant to § 1915(g) must be the imminent danger faced
    by the inmate at the time of the alleged incident . . . and not
    at the time his complaint was filed” (emphasis added). The
    district court disagreed, concluding that allegations of
    past imminent danger do not satisfy the requirement of
    § 1915(g), and denied Heimermann’s motion to recon-
    sider. Heimermann appealed.2
    We agree with the district court. The “imminent danger”
    exception to § 1915(g)’s “three strikes” rule is available “for
    genuine emergencies,” where “time is pressing” and “a
    threat . . . is real and proximate. ” Lewis v. Sullivan, 
    279 F.3d 526
    , 531 (7th Cir. 2002). Any danger Heimermann
    might have experienced between 1998 and 2000 does not
    supply a basis for an exception in July 2002. And although
    Heimermann, apparently understanding this, now argues
    that he did experience imminent danger at the time his
    complaint was filed, his change of course at this stage of
    the proceedings is unavailing.
    AFFIRMED.
    A true Copy:
    Teste:
    ________________________________
    Clerk of the United States Court of
    Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
    2
    Ironically, Heimermann has paid the full $105 appellate filing
    fee.
    USCA-02-C-0072—7-18-03
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-3667

Judges: Per Curiam

Filed Date: 7/18/2003

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/24/2015