James Arthur Meeks v. Tony Ray, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas denies James Arthur Meeks’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal under the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s three-strikes provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The court concludes that Meeks had accumulated three strikes, including the dismissal in the underlying action, and that affirmances of prior dismissals did not constitute additional strikes. Because Meeks did not show that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the appeal, the court denies in forma pauperis status.

Holdings

1. An appellate affirmance of a qualifying district-court dismissal does not constitute a separate strike when the appeal itself was not dismissed as frivolous.
2. A district court's denial of a motion to intervene, and the affirmance of that denial, do not constitute strikes under § 1915(g) because they are not qualifying actions or appeals dismissed on the grounds specified by the statute.
3. A district-court dismissal that constitutes a prisoner's third strike counts for purposes of § 1915(g) even when the prisoner is appealing that dismissal.
4. Plaintiff was not entitled to the imminent-danger exception because he did not allege or make the requisite showing that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the appeal.

Questions Presented

1. Whether affirmances of prior district-court dismissals count as additional strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
2. Whether denial of a motion to intervene constitutes a strike under § 1915(g).
3. Whether a dismissal constituting a prisoner's third strike counts for purposes of determining IFP eligibility when the prisoner is appealing that dismissal.
4. Whether Plaintiff established the imminent-danger exception to the PLRA three-strikes rule.

Disposition

other