121 F.4th 1108
6th Cir.2024Background
- Horace Crump, an incarcerated individual, filed a § 1983 lawsuit against Michigan prison employees, alleging denial of treatment for his multiple sclerosis.
- Crump sought to proceed in forma pauperis (without prepaying court fees), but was denied by the district court under the "three strikes" provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), which limits such privileges for prisoners with three or more prior dismissed actions.
- Two of Crump’s prior cases involved partial dismissals for failure to state a claim (federal claims) and dismissals on non-merits grounds: supplemental jurisdiction (state claims) and Eleventh Amendment immunity.
- The district court counted these mixed dismissals as “strikes,” barring Crump from proceeding without the filing fee.
- Crump appealed, arguing these dismissals should not count as PLRA strikes because they were not based solely on the PLRA’s enumerated grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do mixed-grounds dismissals count as a PLRA “strike?” | Only full dismissals on specified grounds count. | Mixed dismissals can count toward the three-strikes bar. | Only full dismissals on PLRA grounds count as strikes. |
| Does refusal to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims count as a PLRA strike? | Such dismissals are not enumerated as strikes. | Any dismissal in a mixed action should count as a strike. | Such dismissals do not count as a strike. |
| Does Eleventh Amendment immunity dismissal count as a PLRA strike? | Immunity-based dismissals are not PLRA grounds. | Dismissals for immunity should be counted as strikes. | Eleventh Amendment immunity dismissals are not strikes. |
| Should the Sixth Circuit extend its precedent (Pointer) to cover these grounds? | Pointer should not extend beyond its holding. | Pointer supports including mixed dismissals as strikes. | Pointer does not control this scenario; not extended here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Thompson v. DEA, 492 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (A dismissal that does not fully dispose of all claims on enumerated PLRA grounds is not a strike)
- Turley v. Gaetz, 625 F.3d 1005 (7th Cir. 2010) (Strike occurs only when the entire action is dismissed on PLRA-specified grounds)
- Tolbert v. Stevenson, 635 F.3d 646 (4th Cir. 2011) (PLRA strike requires full dismissal on enumerated grounds)
- Ball v. Famiglio, 726 F.3d 448 (3d Cir. 2013) (Dismissals based on immunity do not constitute a PLRA strike unless expressly found to be on those grounds)
- Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (State entities not subject to § 1983 suits, separate from sovereign immunity concerns)