Summary
This Fourth Circuit opinion addresses whether two prior prisoner lawsuits constitute strikes under the three-strike rule of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which restricts in forma pauperis filings. The court holds that a dismissal based on Younger abstention does not qualify as a strike because it does not involve a merits-based determination of frivolousness or failure to state a claim. Additionally, while a dismissal for failing to amend after a court finds a complaint insufficient would ordinarily count as a strike, it cannot be counted here because the dismissal occurred after the plaintiff filed the current action. The district court's dismissal is vacated and remanded.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a dismissal based on Younger abstention constitutes a strike under 28 U.S.C. §1915(g).
- Whether a dismissal for failure to state a claim followed by leave to amend, where the plaintiff fails to amend, counts as a strike, and if so, whether the Anderson dismissal was a prior strike for purposes of the three‑strike rule.
Holdings
- A dismissal based on Younger abstention does not count as a §1915(g) strike because it is not grounded on a finding that the complaint fails to state a claim, is frivolous, or is malicious.
- Such a dismissal does count as a strike, but the Anderson dismissal cannot be counted as a prior strike because it occurred after the filing of the present action; therefore the district court erred in counting it.
- The district court’s denial was improper; the court vacates the dismissal and remands with an order granting in forma pauperis status.
Key quotations
“We agree that his first suit—dismissed under the Younger abstention doctrine—is not a strike. We conclude that the second suit—where a district court found failure to state a claim, gave Burrell an opportunity to amend the complaint and then dismissed because Burrell never did so—would ordinarily constitute a strike. But §1915(g) and our precedent instruct us to count strikes at the time the action is brought.” (at 4)
“Even though the Anderson dismissal meets the requirements of a §1915(g) strike, the district court erred by counting it as a strike in this case because the three‑strike rule requires strikes to be counted as of the date the prisoner files the complaint or appeal.” (at 15)
Factual background
Joel Burrell, a prisoner since 2017, filed multiple §1983 actions in the Eastern District of Virginia. Three of those actions were dismissed: one on Younger abstention grounds, one for failure to state a claim after an opportunity to amend was ignored, and one for failure to state a claim against media defendants. The district court counted all three as strikes under §1915(g) and denied in forma pauperis status, leading to dismissal for nonpayment of the filing fee.
Procedural history
The district court applied the three‑strike rule, counting three prior dismissals—including one based on Younger abstention and one for failure to amend—and dismissed the action for failure to pay the filing fee. Burrell appealed.
Remand instructions
Proceed consistent with this opinion; grant in forma pauperis status to Burrell’s appeal.