Jeffery Paul v. Helen Marberry
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 18477
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Prisoner plaintiff sues federal corrections staff for alleged Eighth Amendment violations during a shakedown.
- District court denied in forma pauperis status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) due to claimed three strikes.
- Three prior Paul v. United States cases were dismissed for failure to prosecute, not for frivolousness or failure to state a claim.
- Court characterized those dismissals as unintelligible complaints dismissed under Rule 8(a)(2) rather than 1915(g) grounds.
- Seventh Circuit held the prior dismissals should not count as strikes because none was expressly dismissed under grounds listed in § 1915(g); present suit may proceed if fees are paid.
- Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prior dismissals count as strikes under § 1915(g). | Plaintiffs previous dismissals were not strikes since not on § 1915(g) grounds. | District court found three dismissals triggered § 1915(g) strikes. | None of the prior dismissals counts as a § 1915(g) strike. |
| Whether unintelligible complaints can trigger a strike. | Repeated unintelligible complaints should not automatically count as strikes. | Dismissals for unintelligible complaints may support strikes if grounded in § 1915(g). | Dismissals for failure to state a claim when unintelligible can be strikes if grounded in § 1915(g); here, not properly counted as such. |
| Whether dismissal without prejudice affects strike status. | Without prejudice dismissals should not create strikes if not on § 1915(g) grounds. | Dismissals on 1915(g) grounds are strikes regardless of prejudice language. | Dismissal without prejudice can count as a strike if grounded in § 1915(g); the court treats the prior three as not so grounded. |
| Can plaintiff proceed in forma pauperis in light of potential strikes? | If prior cases aren’t proper strikes, plaintiff should proceed. | Section 1915(g) precludes proceeding without prepayment of fees if three strikes exist. | Plaintiff entitled to proceed if fees paid, on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Evans v. Illinois Dep’t of Corrections, 150 F.3d 810 (7th Cir. 1998) (dismissals can count as strikes under § 1915(g) when grounds match)
- Okoro v. Bohman, 164 F.3d 1059 (7th Cir. 1999) (unintelligible complaints must be dismissed for failure to state a claim)
- Counsel of United States ex rel. Cafasso v. General Dynamics C4 Systems, Inc., 637 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2011) (illustrates intelligibility and amendment considerations under Rule 8(a)(2))
- Vicom, Inc. v. Harbridge Merchant Services, Inc., 20 F.3d 771 (7th Cir. 1994) (plain meaning requirement for complaint under Rule 8(a)(2))
- Lindell v. McCallum, 352 F.3d 1107 (7th Cir. 2003) (possible inference of malice from repetitive filing patterns)
- O’Neal v. Price, 531 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2008) (strikes determined by grounds for dismissal)
- Smith v. Veterans Administration, 636 F.3d 1306 (10th Cir. 2011) (distribution of strike determinations when grounds unclear)
- Garst v. Lockheed-Martin Corp., 328 F.3d 374 (7th Cir. 2003) (illustrates dismissal for failure to state a claim)
- Destfino v. Reiswig, 630 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2011) (illustrates post-dismissal amendment considerations)