Harnage v. Santiago
3:16-cv-01966
D. Conn.Mar 13, 2017Background
- Plaintiff James A. Harnage, a state prisoner, filed a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint and sought to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP).
- District court denied IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) because Harnage previously had three cases dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim.
- Harnage moved for reconsideration, arguing (1) two cited dismissals should not count as strikes because appeals were pending, and (2) dismissals as time-barred (statute of limitations) are not "frivolous" and therefore should not count as strikes.
- Court considered controlling authority, including the Supreme Court’s decision in Coleman v. Tollefson, which addressed whether dismissals count as strikes while appeals are pending.
- Court rejected both arguments: Coleman forecloses the pending-appeal contention; district and Second Circuit precedent support treating statute-of-limitations dismissals that finally terminate the action as dismissals under § 1915(g).
- Court granted the motion for reconsideration procedurally but denied the requested relief and left the original denial of IFP under § 1915(g) intact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a dismissal counts as a § 1915(g) strike while an appeal is pending | Dismissals should not count as strikes until affirmed on appeal | A dismissal counts as a strike once entered absent a stay; appeals do not prevent counting | Denied: Coleman v. Tollefson controls; a dismissal may count as a strike even if on appeal |
| Whether dismissals based on the statute of limitations count as strikes under § 1915(g) | Time-barred dismissals are not "frivolous" and arise from an affirmative defense, so they should not be strikes | § 1915(g) counts dismissals that finally terminate actions; dismissals for statute-of-limitations on the face of the complaint can be for failure to state a claim and count as strikes | Denied: Court treats statute-of-limitations dismissals that finally terminate the action as strikes |
Key Cases Cited
- Shrader v. CSX Transp., 70 F.3d 255 (2d Cir.) (standards for motions for reconsideration)
- Snider v. Melindez, 199 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 1999) (dismissal contemplated by § 1915 is one that finally terminates the action)
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) (definition of frivolous for § 1915 purposes)
- Coleman v. Tollefson, 135 S. Ct. 1759 (2015) (a dismissal counts as a strike even if it is the subject of an appeal)
- SPGGC, Inc. v. Blumenthal, 408 F. Supp. 2d 87 (D. Conn. 2006) (motion for reconsideration may not relitigate decided issues)