PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-6848

MARC PIERRE HALL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:20-cv-00092-JPB)

Argued: December 7, 2021 Decided: August 10, 2022

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RICHARDSON, Circuit Judge, and Rossie D. ALSTON, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia, sitting by designation.

Vacated and remanded by published opinion. Chief Judge Gregory wrote the opinion, in which Judge Alston joined. Judge Richardson concurred in the judgment and wrote a concurring opinion.

ARGUED: Blaec C. Croft, MCGUIREWOODS LLP, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for Appellant. Erin K. Reisenweber, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Matthew A. Fitzgerald, MCGUIREWOODS LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. William J. Ihlenfeld, II, United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee. USCA4 Appeal: 20-6848 Doc: 37 Filed: 08/10/2022 Pg: 2 of 41

GREGORY, Chief Judge:

Hall is an inmate at United States Penitentiary (“USP”) Hazelton who filed a pro se

civil action in United States district court alleging violations under the Federal Tort Claims

Act (“FTCA”) for denied and delayed medical care of his chronic illnesses. Hall also filed

a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Following the Magistrate

Judge’s recommendation, the district court denied Hall’s IFP motion on the grounds that

he did not meet the “imminent danger of serious physical injury” exception. Hall now

appeals to this court.

In this case, we clarify the proper standard for considering whether a petitioner

meets the “imminent danger” exception in cases, such as here, where a petitioner is alleging

denial or delayed medical treatment resulting in worsening medical conditions and serious

physical injuries. Furthermore, we clarify that while a litigant bringing a claim under the

Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) must show a nexus between the claims presented

and the “imminent danger” alleged, there is no redressability element required to proceed

IFP. Finally, since the district court did not have access to Hall’s medical records and,

thus, did not have a complete record to determine whether Hall satisfied the “imminent

danger” exception based on our clarified standard, we remand for further proceedings

consistent with this opinion.

I.

Marc Pierre Hall is an inmate at USP Hazelton in Bruceton Mills, West Virginia.

J.A. 1. On May 7, 2020, and pursuant to the PLRA, Hall filed a pro se civil action in U.S. USCA4 Appeal: 20-6848 Doc: 37 Filed: 08/10/2022 Pg: 3 of 41

district court alleging four separate violations of the FTCA. Hall alleges that USP Hazelton

is “actively delaying and denying him the appropriate medical treatment, resulting in an

ongoing imminent danger of serious physical injury.” Opening Br. 5 (citing J.A. 1–10).

Specifically, Hall alleges that USP Hazelton has (1) denied “pulmonary, orthopedic,

neurology, rheumatology and physiatry” services; (2) “lumbar surgery and physical

t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document