Recognition of Ongoing Retaliatory Abuse as Imminent Danger under PLRA §1915(g)

Introduction

The Fourth Circuit’s decision in Garfield William Holley v. J. Combs, 22-6177 (4th Cir. Apr. 8, 2025), marks a significant clarification of the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s (“PLRA”) “three-strikes rule” and its “imminent danger” exception. In this case, pro se inmate Garfield Holley sued prison officials at Wallens Ridge State Prison under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that they retaliated against him—because he filed grievances—by subjecting him to brutal, dehumanizing treatment. The district court dismissed his complaint for failure to prepay the filing fee, concluding that Holley had accumulated three “strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and had not demonstrated imminent danger of serious physical injury. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit reversed, holding that Holley’s specific allegations of a continuing pattern of retaliation and abuse satisfied the PLRA’s imminent-danger exception, allowing him to proceed in forma pauperis.

Summary of the Judgment

The Fourth Circuit, in an opinion by Judge Wynn (joined by Judge Gregory) and a separate concurrence in the judgment by Judge Heytens, held:

Holley had accrued three PLRA “strikes” and thus could not proceed without prepayment of the filing fee unless he qualified for the “imminent danger” exception under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Holley’s complaint alleged that in October 2018 he was forced into a locked dog cage, suffered exposure to extreme cold and toxic fumes, developed pneumonia, was subjected to inhumane restraints while hospitalized, and was then denied further medical care—all in retaliation for grievances he filed.
These allegations, along with reports of similar retaliatory treatment at the same prison going back decades, demonstrated an ongoing pattern of cruel and vindictive abuse.
The court held that, under prior precedents, a prisoner may satisfy the imminent-danger exception by pleading a continuing pattern of misconduct that causes ongoing serious harm or places him in imminent danger.
The district court’s dismissal was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings on the merits.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Fourth Circuit’s reasoning rests on a line of decisions interpreting § 1915(g):

PLRA § 1915(g) – Establishes that prisoners with three or more frivolous or malicious suits must prepay filing fees unless they face imminent danger of serious physical injury.
Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2007) – Recognized that a prisoner could invoke the exception by alleging a pattern of past abuses posing ongoing danger.
Newkirk v. Kiser, 812 F. App’x 159 (4th Cir. 2020) – Held that allegations of a pattern of assaults on complaining inmates, including the plaintiff’s own experience, sufficed to plead imminent danger.
Hall v. United States, 44 F.4th 218 (4th Cir. 2022) – Clarified that while past harms alone do not satisfy the exception, a pleaded pattern of past misconduct can support an inference of ongoing or imminent danger at filing.
Johnson v. Warner, 200 F. App’x 270 (4th Cir. 2006) – Vacated a denial of in forma pauperis status where a prisoner alleged repeated guard assaults.

Legal Reasoning

The court applied a de novo standard to Holley’s challenge. It emphasized that the imminent-danger exception is governed by notice-pleading principles: well-pleaded, non-frivolous factual allegations must be accepted as true at this stage. Key points of the reasoning include:

Nexus Requirement: The alleged danger must relate directly to the prisoner’s claims. Here, Holley’s claims of forced confinement in a dog cage and denial of medical care were retaliatory punishments directly tied to his grievance activity.
Pattern of Misconduct: Holley alleged not merely a single incident but a multi-year pattern of retaliatory abuse at Wallens Ridge State Prison, corroborated by contemporaneous media reports and his own prior experiences.
Ongoing Harm: Although the “dog-cage” incident occurred over two years before filing, the court found Holley’s subsequent pneumonia, ICU injuries, permanent wrist damage, and solitary confinement demonstrated continuing physical injury and imminent danger if relief were not granted.
Congressional Directive: The PLRA itself contemplates that the exception applies when its requirements are met; courts must not shrink from allowing meritorious complaints to proceed simply because a prisoner has incurred prior strikes.

Impact

This decision carries important implications:

It reinforces that prisoners may invoke the imminent-danger exception by pleading a coherent pattern of ongoing or recurring abuses, even if the most severe incidents occurred in the past.
District courts must credit detailed allegations of retaliatory and abusive practices when considering in forma pauperis status, guarding against undue barrier to meritorious civil rights claims.
The ruling may encourage prisoners who fear official retaliation to challenge unconstitutional conditions of confinement without facing insurmountable filing-fee obstacles.
Prison officials and charted litigators should anticipate closer scrutiny of § 1915(g) dismissals and ensure that allegations of continuing danger are fully evaluated.

Complex Concepts Simplified

“Three-Strikes Rule” (28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)): Prisoners who have had at least three prior lawsuits dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim must pay court fees upfront for new suits.
Imminent Danger Exception: An exception to the three-strikes rule. If a prisoner “is in imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time of filing, the court waives the prepayment requirement.
In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”): A status permitting indigent litigants to proceed without prepaying filing fees.
Section 1983 Claim: A lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 allows individuals to sue state actors for deprivation of constitutional rights.
Notice Pleading Standard: Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint need only give a short and plain statement of the claim, not detailed evidence, to survive threshold review.

Conclusion

Garfield Holley v. J. Combs clarifies that under the PLRA’s three-strikes framework, a well-pleaded pattern of retaliatory or abusive conduct causing ongoing or recurrent serious harm can satisfy the imminent-danger exception—even if the most egregious incidents occurred years before filing. By crediting Holley’s detailed allegations of forced dog-cage transport, denial of medical care, forcible restraint during hospitalization, and corroborating reports of systemic abuse, the Fourth Circuit ensures that meritorious civil rights actions are not stifled by procedural bars. This decision underscores the balance Congress sought in the PLRA: deterring frivolous prisoner litigation while preserving access to federal courts for those who genuinely face grave risks to their physical safety.