Jason Lee Harris v. J. Kenneth Mangum
863 F.3d 1133
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Jason Harris, an Arizona state prisoner, sued county employees/attorneys in state court; defendants removed the second suit (against Mangum and Dutcher) to federal court.
- Harris filed a pro se motion requesting appointment of a representative/guardian ad litem, asserting prior incompetence findings in a state criminal case.
- The district court screened and dismissed Harris’s complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and denied pending motions as moot, including the guardian request.
- A Ninth Circuit motions panel agreed the suit was frivolous but vacated and remanded limitedly to let the district court decide whether Rule 17(c) required evaluation of Harris’s competence and a guardian appointment.
- On remand the district court declined to assess competence, concluding Harris had no protectable interest under Rule 17(c) that would justify a guardian or other order; it also found Harris provided insufficient mental-health documentation.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding (1) a court need not assess competence when the litigant has no protectable interest to be safeguarded by Rule 17(c), (2) a dismissed case removed from state court by a defendant does not give the prisoner a § 1915(g) "strike," and (3) Harris already had three or more strikes from prior dismissals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court had to assess Harris’s competence / appoint a guardian under Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c) | Harris: prior incompetency finding warranted guardian to protect interests (e.g., avoid § 1915(g) strikes) | Defs: no protectable interest; dismissal proper; guardian unnecessary | Court: No abuse of discretion to forego Rule 17(c) assessment where litigant has no protectable interest to be safeguarded |
| Whether dismissal of a case removed from state court counts as a § 1915(g) "strike" | Harris: needed guardian to voluntarily dismiss to avoid a strike | Defs: district-court dismissal should count as a strike to prevent filing-in-state-court avoidance | Held: A prisoner does not accrue a § 1915(g) strike from a case he filed in state court even if later removed by another party to federal court |
| Whether Harris already was affected by § 1915(g) (had ≥3 strikes) | Harris: prior dismissals should not count as strikes | Defs: several prior dismissals counted; Harris already barred | Held: Four prior dismissals (cases dismissed for failure to state a claim with leave-to-amend where Harris failed to amend) count as strikes; Harris had ≥3 strikes already |
| Whether potential designation as a vexatious litigant created a protectable interest | Harris: guardian could have voluntarily dismissed to avoid vexatious designation | Defs: speculative; voluntary dismissal would not materially change future court’s view | Held: Interest speculative and insufficient; not a protectable interest for Rule 17(c) purposes |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Walker, 745 F.3d 1303 (9th Cir. 2014) (purpose and discretionary safeguards under Rule 17(c))
- Belanus v. Clark, 796 F.3d 1021 (9th Cir. 2015) (standing and § 1915(g) concreteness discussion)
- Allen v. Calderon, 408 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2005) (competency hearing procedure when substantial doubt exists)
- El-Shaddai v. Zamora, 833 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2016) (interpreting what dismissals count as strikes under § 1915(g))
- Henson v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., 137 S. Ct. 1718 (2017) (apply statutes according to plain language)
- Coleman v. Tollefson, 135 S. Ct. 1759 (2015) (statutory interpretation principles)
- Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (leave to amend standard for pro se plaintiffs)
- Knapp v. Hogan, 738 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2013) (strikes analysis not limited to Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals)
- O'Neal v. Price, 531 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2008) (§ 1915(g) does not distinguish dismissals with or without prejudice)
- Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2007) (All Writs Act and pre-filing orders for vexatious litigants)
- De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144 (9th Cir. 1990) (standard for pre-filing orders; litigant activity must be numerous or abusive)