Last week, the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (Easterbrook, Cannes, Sykes)denied relief to a federal inmate suing for $10 million in damages under the Federal Torts Claims Act under a theory that the government was somehow negligent in enabling the breakout. Jose Banks v. U.S., Docket No. 14-2516 (decided September 25, 2015).
In 2012, Mr. Banks and his cellmate chiseled a hole, rappelled 17 stories down on a rope fashioned from bed sheets and dental floss, and hailed a cab to make their escape from the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Chicago, IL. Both men were later caught. Mr. Banks complained that he suffered damage from the escape, "included the trauma of dangling on the makeshift rope, in fear of his life." He further argued that prison guards should have noticed that he was digging an escape hole and stopped him. He also alleged that he now has to endure tighter restrictions than fellow inmates at his current prison because of the prior escape.
The panel of appellate judges rejected the State's procedural argument that the suit was untimely. However, they found no merit to Mr. Banks' underlying claims and consequently affirmed the district court's decision that the matter was frivolous. The appellate court's order can be found here.
"Frivolous litigation" is the start or continuation of a lawsuit that has slim to no chance of being won for lack of merit. (However, the fact that a suit or claim is lost does not mean that it was "frivolous": in most cases, it merely means the plaintiff/petitioner/complainant failed to meet his legal burden to show that he is entitled to the requested relief.) Prisoners in particular are known to bring forth baseless lawsuits, both because of their limited knowledge of the law and because many will do or say just about anything to regain their freedom.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PRLA") was designed to decrease the incidence of litigation within the court system and limits the ability of prisoners to bring certain types of actions against the government while the inmate is still in prison. Courts disagree about whether the PLRA allows an inmate to sue for money damages for a constitutional violation that results in mental or emotional injury, but not physical injury. Under the PLRA, if a prisoner has had three prior lawsuits dismissed as “frivolous, malicious, or failing to state a claim for relief,” he may not have his filing fees waived and will have to pay them up front. The 7th Circuit found both the Banks suit and its appeal to be two strikes against Mr. Banks under this "three strikes and you're out" rule.
No comments:
Post a Comment