WILLIAMS
v.
SEMINOLE HARD ROCK CASINO
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Williams sought reconsideration of a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) by claiming an imminent-danger exception based on mental health conditions. The District Court rejected her argument, holding that allegations of mental illness alone cannot satisfy the imminent-danger exception, which requires specific, credible allegations of imminent danger of serious physical harm.
The court held that allegations of mental illness without more are insufficient to meet the imminent-danger exception to § 1915(g). The exception requires specific, credible allegations of imminent danger of serious physical harm, and emotional or psychological injuries do not qualify as physical injuries sufficient to satisfy this standard.
[1] Allegations of mental illness alone are insufficient to satisfy the "imminent-danger" exception to 28 U.S.C. …
[2] The "imminent-danger" exception to 28 U.S.C. …
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“[E]motional or psychological injuries are not physical injuries and therefore cannot satisfy the requirements of § 1915(g).”
Establishes the distinction between mental and physical injuries in the § 1915(g) analysis
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Williams filed a case against Seminole Hard Rock Casino and subsequently filed a motion to reconsider the dismissal of her case under 28 U.S…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Before the Court is Plaintiff's "Motion to Pay" (Doc. 12), which the Court construes as a motion to reconsider the order dismissing this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (see Doc. 3). Plaintiff argues she meets the “imminent-danger" exception to § 1915(g) because she suffers from depression, PTSD, and “schizobipolar." But Plaintiff's allegation that she suffers from mental illness, without more, is insufficient to meet the “imminent-danger" exception to § 1915(g). See, e.g., Clay v. Martin, 2023 WL 2733387, at *3 (M.D. Ga. Mar. 31, 2023) ("[E]motional or psychological injuries are not physical injuries and therefore cannot satisfy the requirements of § 1915(g).") (citing Sanders v. Melvin, 873 F. 3d 957, 960 (7th Cir. 2017) (prisoner's allegations of "deteriorating mental state" insufficient to satisfy the § 1915(g) exception because "[m]ental deterioration. . .is a psychological rather than a physical problem"); Mathews 1
v. Streeit, 2024 WL 1589499, at *2 (N.D. Fla. Mar. 21, 2024), report and recommendation adopted, 2024 WL 1585932 (N.D. Fla. Apr. 11, 2024) ("The [imminent-danger] exception requires a showing of specific, credible allegations of imminent-danger of serious physical harm.") (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, Plaintiff provides no basis for the Court to reconsider the dismissal under § 1915(g). Plaintiff's "Motion to Pay" (Doc. 12) is therefore DENIED. DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on June 25, 2024.
Charlene Edwards Honeywell Charlene Edwards Honeywell United States District Judge Copies to: Plaintiff, pro se 2