Gabriel Pittman v. Donald Trump
699 F. App'x 107
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Gabriel Pittman, a state inmate, sought to file a civil-rights complaint in forma pauperis (ifp) challenging past treatment at another prison.
- The District Court denied ifp status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), concluding Pittman had accrued three "strikes" for prior frivolous dismissals.
- The District Court identified three prior cases as strikes: Pittman v. Martin; Pittman v. Pennsylvania General Assembly; and Pittman v. President Clinton.
- On appeal the Third Circuit reviewed whether the three prior dismissals qualified as strikes under § 1915(g).
- The Third Circuit found two of the cited dismissals expressly relied on § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) (thus qualifying as strikes) but the Martin dismissal was a generic dismissal under § 1915(e) and did not qualify.
- Because only two qualifying strikes existed and no other qualifying dismissals were found, the Court vacated the District Court’s order and remanded for the District Court to determine if Pittman qualifies for ifp on financial grounds and, if granted, to consider any § 1915(e) or § 1915A screening issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pittman had three prior "strikes" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) | Pittman implicitly contends he did not have three qualifying strikes | District Court argued three prior dismissals counted as strikes, barring ifp | Two dismissals qualified; the third (Martin) did not; only two strikes found, so § 1915(g) bar did not apply |
| Whether a generic dismissal citing § 1915(e) is a strike | Pittman argued the Martin dismissal should not count | District Court treated Martin as a strike | Court held a generic § 1915(e) dismissal without specific subsection does not qualify as a strike under Byrd |
| Whether other prior cases amount to a third strike | Pittman argued no other qualifying dismissals exist | District Court maintained there were three strikes | Court reviewed PACER and records and found no additional qualifying dismissals |
| Proper remand disposition | Pittman sought leave to proceed ifp | District Court had denied ifp under three-strikes rule | Court vacated denial and remanded to determine ifp status based on finances; preserved District Court’s ability to screen merits under § 1915(e)/1915A |
Key Cases Cited
- Byrd v. Shannon, 715 F.3d 117 (3d Cir.) (defining when a dismissal counts as a § 1915(g) strike)
- Millhouse v. Heath, 866 F.3d 152 (3d Cir.) (review of § 1915(g) application is plenary)
- Keener v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 128 F.3d 143 (3d Cir.) (appellate jurisdiction under § 1291 noted)
- Sinwell v. Shapp, 536 F.2d 15 (3d Cir.) (procedure for assessing ifp status on remand)
- Funk v. Comm’r, 163 F.2d 796 (3d Cir.) (judicial notice and use of public records)