Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-18-02081/USCOURTS-ca13-18-02081-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 512
Nature of Suit: 
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

VICTOR C. FOURSTAR, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant

JUDY RAE REDBOY,

Plaintiff

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________

2018-2081

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims 

in No. 1:18-cv-00405-EDK, Judge Elaine Kaplan.

______________________

Decided: February 19, 2020

______________________

VICTOR C. FOURSTAR, JR., Billings, MT, pro se. 

 P. DAVIS OLIVER, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by 

JOSEPH H. HUNT, ROBERT EDWARD KIRSCHMAN, JR., LOREN 

MISHA PREHEIM. 

 ______________________

Case: 18-2081 Document: 50 Page: 1 Filed: 02/19/2020
2 FOURSTAR v. UNITED STATES

Before NEWMAN, TARANTO, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

NEWMAN, Circuit Judge.

Mr. Victor C. Fourstar, Jr., on March 15, 2018, while 

incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in

Florence, Colorado, filed a Tucker Act Complaint in the 

United States Court of Federal Claims, accompanied by a 

Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Complaint, Fourstar v. United States, No. 18-405-EDK (Fed. Cl. 

Mar. 15, 2018), ECF No. 1 (“Complaint”); Motion for Leave 

to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Fourstar v. United States, 

No. 18-405-EDK (Fed. Cl. Mar. 15, 2018), ECF No. 5. His 

complaint asserts that the government is mismanaging 

certain Indian properties and resources, and states the issue of his Tucker Act claim:

[T]he United States acting as trustee under color of 

federal law in their official capacity did breach 

their trust in connection with the United States 

management of forested resources, road building 

and rights of way, Indian funds and government 

fees, and regulations promulgated under their 

money-mandating statutes 25 U.S.C. §§ 406, 407 & 

25 U.S.C. §§ 318a, 323–325; 25 U.S.C. §§ 162a, 413, 

respectively.

Complaint at 3. The Court of Federal Claims denied his 

motion to proceed in forma pauperis on the basis of 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(g), which provides: 

In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or 

appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding 

under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more 

prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in 

any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court 

of the United States that was dismissed on the 

grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to 

state a claim upon which relief may be granted, 

Case: 18-2081 Document: 50 Page: 2 Filed: 02/19/2020
FOURSTAR v. UNITED STATES 3

unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of 

serious physical injury.

This provision, enacted as part of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”), Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 

1321 (1996), is called the “three-strikes rule.”

The Court of Federal Claims found that “Mr. Fourstar 

[] is currently incarcerated, and has, on more than three 

occasions while incarcerated, filed complaints or appeals in 

a court of the United States that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim.”1 Fed. Cl. 

Order at 1 (internal citation omitted). The court also found

that “[t]he dangers that [Mr. Fourstar] alleges in his application [] lack supporting detail, imminence, and/or any connection to the claims in this lawsuit.” Id. at 2. The court 

then required him to pay the filing fee, in the amount of 

$400. Id. at 3. When Mr. Fourstar did not pay the fee, the 

court dismissed his complaint. Fed. Cl. Op. at 2. He appeals the denial of his motion to proceed in forma pauperis,

and dismissal of his complaint. Federal Circuit jurisdiction 

is pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).

Appeal to the Federal Circuit

On April 9, 2018, Mr. Fourstar was released from 

prison. On June 8, 2018, Mr. Fourstar timely filed a Notice 

of Appeal. On October 1, 2018, Mr. Fourstar filed a statement that he was arrested and detained on September 1, 

2018. On January 31, 2019, Mr. Fourstar filed a motion to 

proceed in forma pauperis in this court pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915.

1 Fourstar v. United States, No. 18-00405-EDK (Fed. 

Cl. Apr. 3, 2018) (“Fed. Cl. Order”); dismissal (Fed. Cl. May 

9, 2018) (“Fed. Cl. Op.”); on reconsidn. No. 2018-2081 (Fed. 

Cir. Feb. 26, 2019).

Case: 18-2081 Document: 50 Page: 3 Filed: 02/19/2020
4 FOURSTAR v. UNITED STATES

Because Mr. Fourstar was not a prisoner at the time of 

filing his appeal, § 1915 is not applicable. See Millhouse v. 

Heath, 866 F.3d 152, 157−58 (3d Cir. 2017) (“Under the 

plain language of the PLRA, it is the filing of the notice of 

appeal that ‘triggers’ the three strikes rule”); see also Harris v. City of New York, 607 F.3d 18, 21–22 (2d Cir. 2010) 

(section 1915(g) requires prisoner status “at the moment 

of” filing the civil action or appeal). We apply Federal Rule 

of Appellate Procedure 3(a)(2): 

(a) Filing the Notice of Appeal.

* * *

(2) An appellant’s failure to take any step other 

than the timely filing of a notice of appeal does not 

affect the validity of the appeal, but is ground only 

for the court of appeals to act as it considers appropriate, including dismissing the appeal.

We deem it appropriate to accept this appeal for the purpose of reviewing the dismissal action of the Court of Federal Claims, and do not require payment of the filing fee.

Review of Action of the Court of Federal Claims

Courts of the United States have authority to grant 

in forma pauperis status to litigants. Denton v. Hernandez,

504 U.S. 25, 33–34 (1992) (discussing an earlier form of the 

PLRA). Denials of in forma pauperis status are reviewed 

for abuse of discretion. Id. (discussing frivolousness determination); Bryant v. United States, 618 F. App’x 683, 685

(Fed. Cir. 2015). Abuse of discretion may arise on an error 

of law, clearly erroneous fact finding, or a clear error of 

judgment. Qingdao Taifa Grp. Co. v. United States, 581 

F.3d 1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

Case: 18-2081 Document: 50 Page: 4 Filed: 02/19/2020
FOURSTAR v. UNITED STATES 5

A

The Three Strikes Rule

Mr. Fourstar states that the Court of Federal Claims 

improperly denied his request to proceed in forma pauperis. He states that he brought a meritorious Tucker Act 

claim, and his claim was not “frivolous or malicious,” the 

words of Section 1915(g). He also states that he meets the 

statutory exception of being “under imminent danger of serious physical injury,” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

The government recites several actions Mr. Fourstar 

filed that were dismissed because they were either frivolous or failed to state a claim: Fourstar v. Outlaw, No. 

1:07cv11, 2007 WL 2427996 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 22, 2007), appeal dismissed, 283 F. App’x 209 (5th Cir. 2008) (failure to 

state a claim); Fourstar v. Martinez, 541 F. App’x 494 

(Mem.) (5th Cir. 2013) (frivolous); and Fourstar v. Murlak,

No. CV 07-5892 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2009) (frivolous and failure to state a claim). In addition, the Court of Federal 

Claims cited a wrongful arrest and imprisonment case

wherein it “prohibited [Mr. Fourstar] from filing any claim 

in the United States Court of Federal Claims under Section 

1915.” Fourstar v. United States, 122 Fed. Cl. 596, 599–

600, 600 n.7 (2015).

The Court of Federal Claims did not abuse its discretion when it held that the three-strikes rule was met by Mr. 

Fourstar’s litigation history.

B

Imminent Danger of Serious Physical Injury

Mr. Fourstar states that the exception to the threestrikes rule applies to his action in the Court of Federal 

Claims because he is “under imminent danger of serious 

physical injury” due to the “on-going common scheme by 

the defendant(s) to illegally construct the Keystone XL 

Pipeline and that if the Keystone XL Pipeline breaks or 

Case: 18-2081 Document: 50 Page: 5 Filed: 02/19/2020
6 FOURSTAR v. UNITED STATES

leaks it will poison [his] drinking water source [the Missouri River],” Fed. Cl. Order at 2 (internal quotation marks 

omitted), and “leaked Canada tar-sands oil on the Standing 

Rock Indian Reservation” from the Dakota Access Pipeline,

Fed. Cl. Op. at 1. He further states that, he is “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” because the medical staff at the detention facility in Florence, Colorado,

where he was detained, denied him knee and rotator cuff

surgery and dental care, causing severe pain and suffering;

exposed him to tuberculosis without proper screening and

treatment, causing shortness of breath and weight loss; 

and denied him anxiety and depression medication. Fed. 

Cl. Order at 2.

Mr. Fourstar’s Tucker Act Complaint concerns the government’s management of Indian properties and resources. 

Rulings of regional circuits guide that “§ 1915(g) allows a 

three-strikes litigant to proceed [in forma pauperis] only 

when there exists an adequate nexus between the claims 

he seeks to pursue and the imminent danger he alleges,” 

and “requires that the prisoner’s complaint seek to redress 

an imminent danger of serious physical injury and that 

this danger must be fairly traceable to a violation of law 

alleged in the complaint.” Pettus v. Morgenthau, 554 F.3d 

293, 296, 297 (2d Cir. 2009). Additionally, “[a] plaintiff 

must [] show that his complaint alleged facts from which a 

court, informed by its judicial experience and common 

sense, could draw the reasonable inference that [he] was 

under an existing danger at the time he filed his complaint.” Vandiver v. Prison Health Servs., Inc., 727 F.3d 

580, 585 (6th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted)

(third alteration in original). Precedent embodies the 

premise that imminent physical injury and personal danger are the intended focus of the statutory exception to the 

three-strikes rule.

Here, Mr. Fourstar states that he is “under imminent 

danger of serious physical injury” because of the alleged illegal construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline and possible 

Case: 18-2081 Document: 50 Page: 6 Filed: 02/19/2020
FOURSTAR v. UNITED STATES 7

poisoning if it breaks, and leakage of Canada tar-sands oil 

on the Standing Rock Indian Reservation. The Court of 

Federal Claims deemed this argument as too speculative 

and attenuated to qualify as “imminent danger.” The court 

stated that “Mr. Fourstar . . . is currently incarcerated in 

Wolf Point, Montana. The Standing Rock Sioux Indian 

Reservation straddles North and South Dakota and encompasses all of Sioux County in North [Dakota] and all of 

Corson County, and small parcels in Ziebach and Perkins 

Counties in South Dakota,” and “Mr. Fourstar does not explain how an alleged pipeline leak in another state is causing him imminent danger of serious physical injury.” Fed.

Cl. Op. at 2 (internal quotations marks omitted). 

Mr. Fourstar’s further contention that he is “under the 

imminent danger of physical injury” because the medical 

staff at the detention center denied him surgical, dental,

and medical care, is unfounded. He shows no relation to 

his Tucker Act assertions concerning management of Indian properties and resources. “Absent some nexus between a complaint’s claims and its allegation that a 

plaintiff is under imminent danger of serious physical 

harm, the injury-in-fact that Congress so carefully excepted from the general requirement that a three-strikes 

litigant pay his filing fees could go unaddressed by the litigation—a result clearly contrary to the raison d'être of the 

exception itself.” Pettus, 554 F.3d at 298.

The Court of Federal Claims reasonably determined 

that Mr. Fourstar was not subject to the statutory exception to the three-strikes rule. Thus, the court did not abuse 

its discretion in denying Mr. Fourstar’s request to proceed 

in forma pauperis. We affirm the decision to dismiss Mr. 

Fourstar’s complaint without prejudice, when he did not 

pay the filing fee in the Court of Federal Claims.

AFFIRMED

No costs.

Case: 18-2081 Document: 50 Page: 7 Filed: 02/19/2020