Hill v. Gallagher, 491 S.W.3d 458

Jessie Hill, an incarcerated individual, filed a FOIA request to the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory for records related to his criminal case; custodian Richard Gallagher denied the request citing statutory restrictions.
Hill sought circuit-court review and filed to proceed in forma pauperis; the circuit court initially granted pauper status, later revoked it based on prior "strikes," and dismissed his case without prejudice.
On initial appeal this court reversed and remanded because one cited prior case did not name Hill; the circuit court reinstated pauper status but Gallagher moved to revoke again, arguing federal suits Hill filed should count as strikes under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-68-607.
The circuit court then revoked Hill’s pauper status a second time, relying in part on three federal lawsuits as qualifying prior frivolous actions; Hill appealed and sought pauper status on appeal (which was granted).
Hill raised three issues on appeal: (1) whether federal-court dismissals may be counted as "strikes" under § 16-68-607; (2) whether habeas/federal nature of those suits excludes them from counting; and (3) whether his FOIA action fit the imminent-danger exception.
The Arkansas Supreme Court reviewed statutory interpretation de novo and concluded that § 16-68-607 is part of the state Code of Practice in Civil Cases, which applies to the courts of Arkansas, so federal actions cannot be counted as strikes; the court reversed and remanded without reaching the other issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether prior federal-court dismissals count as "strikes" under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-68-607	Hill: § 16-68-607 is limited to actions in Arkansas courts; federal dismissals should not be counted	Gallagher: Prior federal suits qualify as prior occasions of frivolous actions and therefore are strikes	Reversed — statute is within state Code of Practice that governs courts of this state; federal cases do not count as strikes
Whether federal habeas-type cases should be excluded from counting as strikes	Hill: Federal habeas actions should not count as frivolous strikes under the statute	Gallagher: Substance of prior federal suits makes them count regardless of habeas character	Not reached (court reversed on territorial application)
Whether Hill’s FOIA petition falls within the imminent-danger exception to proceed despite prior strikes	Hill: His case involves imminent danger of serious physical injury and thus falls within the exception	Gallagher: Argued Hill did not meet imminent-danger exception	Not reached (court reversed on territorial application)

Davis v. Deen, 437 S.W.3d 694 (Ark. 2014) (defendant has right to records; laboratory must disclose evidence to defendant)
Stivers v. State, 118 S.W.3d 558 (Ark. 2003) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
Singleton v. State, 357 S.W.3d 891 (Ark. 2009) (plain-language construction of statutes; no resort to other rules when language is unambiguous)
Wagner v. State, 368 S.W.3d 914 (Ark. 2010) (this court has authority to construe statutes)