Perry, an inmate at New Castle Correctional Facility, sued another inmate, a law librarian, disciplinary hearing officer, grievance specialist, and executive assistant, alleging retaliation after his legal documents were confiscated and he received disciplinary sanctions. The case centers on Perry's claim that defendants retaliated against him for preparing initial disclosures in another legal matter.
Judge Hanlon found that Perry had accumulated at least four 'strikes' under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which bars prisoners from proceeding without paying filing fees unless they face 'imminent danger of serious physical injury.' As Judge Hanlon noted, Perry's strikes included dismissals in cases against Zatecky, Neal, Doe, and most recently Sevier, all thrown out under § 1915A for failing to state valid claims.
The court delivered sharp criticism of Perry's conduct, quoting a Seventh Circuit precedent that 'an effort to bamboozle the court by seeking permission to proceed in forma pauperis after a federal judge has held that § 1915(g) applies to a particular litigant will lead to immediate termination of the suit.' Judge Hanlon emphasized that Perry's failure to disclose his strike-out status 'leads to the immediate termination of this action.'
Perry had initially been granted in forma pauperis status to proceed without paying the $405 filing fee, but Judge Hanlon reconsidered that ruling sua sponte after discovering Perry's litigation history. The court noted that while Perry mentioned some prior lawsuits in his application, he failed to include dismissals from the Northern District of Indiana and listed only one case where he received a strike.
The court rejected Perry's retaliation claims as insufficient to establish the 'imminent danger' exception that would allow a struck-out prisoner to proceed without paying fees. Judge Hanlon found that Perry's allegations about confiscated documents and disciplinary sanctions 'does not include allegations suggesting that he is in imminent danger of physical injury,' making him ineligible for the exception under § 1915(g).
The ruling represents a growing trend of federal courts cracking down on prisoners who attempt to circumvent the three-strikes rule through misrepresentation. The Seventh Circuit has consistently held that dismissal with prejudice is appropriate for litigants who misrepresent their litigation history, as the court cited in Hoskins v. Dart.
Perry now has until April 23, 2026, to convince Judge Hanlon why his case should not be dismissed with prejudice as a sanction for concealing his strike-out status. If dismissed with prejudice, Perry would be permanently barred from refiling the claims and would face additional scrutiny in future litigation attempts.