WILLIAMS
v.
BABY DOLL'S GENTLEMAN'S CLUB
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, a pro se litigant, sought reconsideration of her case's dismissal under the in forma pauperis statute (28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)), arguing she qualified for the imminent-danger exception based on mental health conditions. The court rejected this argument, holding that psychological injuries alone cannot satisfy the imminent-danger exception, which requires credible allegations of imminent physical harm.
Allegations of mental illness without more are insufficient to satisfy the imminent-danger exception to § 1915(g), which requires specific, credible allegations of imminent danger of serious physical harm. Mental health conditions constitute psychological rather than physical injuries and therefore cannot meet the statutory exception.
[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 core legal principle that psychological injuries do not meet the statutory exception
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 suit against Baby Doll's Gentleman's Club and sought to proceed in forma pauperis. Her case was dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1…
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.
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. 11) 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