Summary
The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the revocation of Tommie Lee Harris’s in forma pauperis status under the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s three-strikes provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The court held that dismissals based on declining supplemental jurisdiction, failure to serve, and quasi-judicial immunity generally do not constitute qualifying strikes because they are not among the statute’s enumerated grounds. The court concluded that Harris had only two qualifying strikes and could proceed in forma pauperis if otherwise eligible.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether dismissal of state-law claims following a district court's decision not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction constitutes a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
- Whether dismissal of a defendant for failure to effect service constitutes a strike under § 1915(g).
- Whether dismissals based on quasi-judicial immunity generally constitute strikes under § 1915(g).
- Whether the district court properly revoked Harris's in forma pauperis status based on three prior strikes.
Holdings
- A dismissal based on a district court's decision not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims is not a dismissal on one of the grounds enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and therefore does not qualify as a strike.
- Dismissal of a defendant for failure to effect service is not a dismissal for frivolousness, maliciousness, or failure to state a claim and therefore is not a strike under § 1915(g).
- Immunity-based dismissals generally do not qualify as strikes under § 1915(g), because immunity is not one of the grounds expressly listed in that subsection.
- Because Harris had only two qualifying strikes, the district court erred in revoking his IFP status; Harris may proceed IFP so long as he is otherwise eligible.
Key quotations
“Here, the statutory language is clear—if a case was not dismissed on one of the specific enumerated grounds, it does not count as a strike under § 1915(g).” (at 6)
“We follow the D.C. Circuit and hold that a dismissal due to the district court’s decision not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims does not qualify the case as a strike under the PLRA.” (at 8)
“A dismissal due to a failure to serve is plainly not a dismissal on the ground that the suit was frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim.” (at 9)
“In sum, Congress’ omission of immunity-based dismissal from the strike provision in § 1915(g) evidences its intent generally not to include this dismissal ground as a strike.” (at 11)
“Unless an incarcerated litigant has accrued three strikes on grounds plainly enumerated in § 1915(g), she is entitled to IFP status.” (at 12)
Factual background
Harris, a state prisoner, filed an excessive-force action against a correctional officer and sought to proceed in forma pauperis. The district court determined that Harris had three prior PLRA strikes and revoked his IFP status. Two challenged prior cases involved dismissal after refusal to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, failure to serve one defendant, and quasi-judicial immunity for other defendants.
Procedural history
Harris filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force and sought in forma pauperis status. The Central District of California revoked his IFP status after finding that he had three qualifying prior strikes. Harris conceded two strikes but challenged the treatment of Harris v. Bick and Harris v. Nielsen as additional strikes. The Ninth Circuit held that neither case qualified as a strike, reversed the revocation, and remanded.
Remand instructions
The district court must reconsider Harris's in forma pauperis status without counting Harris v. Bick or Harris v. Nielsen as PLRA strikes; Harris may proceed IFP if otherwise eligible.