Eric Knapp v. Hogan
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 25683
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- Knapp, a California state prisoner, sues under 42 U.S.C. §1983 alleging retaliation by prison officials related to his mother's anti-corruption website.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants.
- Defendants move to dismiss Knapp’s appeal as barred by the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s three-strikes rule.
- Knapp has five prior dismissals: three district-court Rule 8(a) dismissals and two dismissals of appeals for lack of good faith.
- The panel held that repeated, knowing Rule 8(a) violations, with an opportunity to amend and no timely correction, count as strikes under §1915(g).
- Knapp’s appeal is DISMISSED under the three-strikes provision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do Rule 8(a) dismissals count as §1915(g) strikes? | Knapp contends Rule 8(a) dismissals are not strikes. | Defendants argue Rule 8(a) dismissals can count as strikes when related to failure to state a claim. | Yes; Rule 8(a) dismissals can count as strikes if they involve failure to state a claim and meet criteria. |
| Are repeated Rule 8(a) dismissals after leave-to-amend strikes when there is no timely correction? | Knapp argues not all such dismissals should be strikes. | Defendants contend repeated Rule 8(a) dismissals with no timely amendment are strikes. | Yes; repeated, knowingly defective pleadings with no timely amendment constitute strikes. |
| Did Knapp accumulate three or more strikes to disqualify IFP status? | Knapp contends his prior actions were not proper strikes. | Defendants demonstrate five strikes (three district court dismissals, two appeals). | Knapp accrued more than three strikes; IFP status is revoked. |
Key Cases Cited
- Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2005) (interprets § 1915(g) frivolous/malicious/leave-to-amend distinctions)
- Moore v. Maricopa Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, 657 F.3d 890 (9th Cir. 2011) (comparison to Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal in § 1915(g))
- Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 1999) (stated purpose of § 1915(g) to curb frivolous prisoner suits)
- Garst v. Lockheed-Martin Corp., 328 F.3d 374 (7th Cir. 2003) (inflaming inference from irremediably incomprehensible pleadings)
- Paul v. Marberry, 658 F.3d 702 (7th Cir. 2011) (seventh circuit on dismissals for inability to state claims after leave to amend)