No. 24-6124

Bradley Dorman v. Ricky D. Dixon, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

Lower Court: Eleventh Circuit
Docketed: 2024-12-11
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Relisted (2)IFP
Tags: court-access equal-protection first-amendment prison-litigation-reform-act three-strike-rule younger-abstention
Key Terms:
Securities
Latest Conference: 2025-06-05 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the Prison Litigation Reform Act's 'Three-Strike' Rule is unconstitutionally applied to a prisoner's prior Younger abstention dismissals and violates First Amendment and equal protection rights

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1). Is the application of the Prison litigation Reform Act (“PLRA’), “ThreeStrike” Rule, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) to Petitioner's prior dismissals under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 41 (1971)(“Younger Abstence Doctrine”) unreasonable as the cases were automatically dismissed and should ‘>" “not trigger a PLRA strike? re Tess 2). Is the PLRA unconstitutional under the United States First Amendment — and U.S. Supreme Court precedent, considering prisonershavea constitutional right to access the courts. 3). Does the PLRA violate equal protection of the United States by denying court access to indigent prisoners while affording it to similarly situated __ Prisoners who can pay the filing fee, and treating prisoners differently from other litigants?

Docket Entries

2025-06-06
Rehearing DENIED.
2025-05-20
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/5/2025.
2025-03-21
Petition for Rehearing filed.
2025-02-24
Petition DENIED.
2025-01-23
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/21/2025.
2024-10-21
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 10, 2025)

Attorneys

Bradley Dorman
Bradley Dorman — Petitioner