Gabriel Gonzalez v. United States, 23 F.4th 788

Gabriel Gonzalez, a federal inmate, sued under the Federal Tort Claims Act claiming prison officials destroyed his legal papers.
The district court screened and dismissed his complaint for failure to state a claim under the PLRA screening statutes (28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A).
The district court also stated that the dismissal “counts as a ‘strike’ within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).”
Gonzalez appealed only that strike statement, seeking to overturn it even though it cannot affect him unless and until he accumulates three qualifying dismissals and files again.
The Eighth Circuit majority held it lacked jurisdiction because any injury from the strike designation is speculative and not certainly impending; a later judge faced with a three-strikes allegation must independently assess whether prior dismissals count.
Judge Gruender dissented, arguing the district court exceeded its jurisdiction by deciding an unripe issue and that the appellate court should vacate and remand to delete the strike pronouncement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court of appeals has jurisdiction to review the district court’s §1915(g) “strike” designation now	Gonzalez asks the court to overturn the called strike immediately	The called strike is unripe and causes no certainly impending injury until a future court faces the three‑strike issue	Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; the strike call is not ripe until a later tribunal must determine three prior qualifying dismissals
Whether the district court’s strike statement was improper and should be vacated	Gonzalez contends the strike designation is incorrect and should be set aside	The district court’s remark was an advisory warning/dictum about possible future consequences and nonbinding	Majority treats the statement as nonbinding dicta; dissent would vacate and remand to remove the strike pronouncement

Simons v. Washington, 996 F.3d 350 (6th Cir. 2021) (only the later tribunal confronting a three‑strikes challenge should determine whether prior dismissals count)
Fourstar v. Garden City Grp., Inc., 875 F.3d 1147 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (later judge must independently evaluate prior dismissals for §1915(g) purposes)
Hill v. Madison Cnty., Ill., 983 F.3d 904 (7th Cir. 2020) (interpreting ripeness and effect of prematurely called strikes)
Dooley v. Wetzel, 957 F.3d 366 (3d Cir. 2020) (contrasting view that premature strike pronouncements should be vacated)
Deleon v. Doe, 361 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2004) (earlier decision treating prematurely called strikes as binding on later courts)
ABF Freight Sys., Inc. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 645 F.3d 954 (8th Cir. 2011) (standard for jurisdictional legal questions)
Texas v. United States, 523 U.S. 296 (1998) (ripeness: future contingencies may render a claim nonjusticiable)
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016) (Article III standing requires a concrete and particularized injury)