Coleman v. Tollefson, 135 S. Ct. 1759

Coleman, a state prisoner, filed three federal suits dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim under §1915(g).
While appealing the third dismissal, he filed four additional federal suits seeking in forma pauperis status.
District court and Sixth Circuit held that a prior §1915(g) dismissal counts as a strike even if pending on appeal.
Constitutionality of counting a dismissal during appeal was contested; Coleman urged only final dispositions should count.
The Court held that a prior dismissal counts as a strike even when an appeal is pending, baring in forma pauperis status for new actions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a §1915(g) dismissal counts as a strike while appeal is pending	Coleman argues pending appeal should delay counting	Respondents argue dismissal counts immediately	Counts as strike despite pending appeal

Adkins v. E. I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331 (U.S. 1948) (access to justice despite poverty; early in forma pauperis statute context)
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1989) (filtration of frivolous prisoner suits)
Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (U.S. 2007) (statutory three-strikes aim to filter bad claims)
Heintz v. Jenkins, 514 U.S. 291 (U.S. 1995) (dismissal language and appellate context)
Clay v. United States, 537 U.S. 522 (U.S. 2003) (finality and preclusion effects of judgments)