Jones v. Smith, 720 F.3d 142

Jones, an inmate, filed a 42 U.S.C. §1983 civil rights action and sought IFP status.
The district court denied IFP based on five alleged PLRA “strikes” arising from two prior cases.
In Coughlin, the district court dismissed for failure to state a claim and the appeal was dismissed.
In Herbert, a §2254 habeas petition was denied and related appeals and Rule 60(b) motions were dismissed.
The district court counted five strikes—Coughlin’s dismissal, Coughlin’s appeal dismissal, Herbert’s habeas dismissal, Herbert’s initial appeal, and the Rule 60(b) appeal dismissal.
The Second Circuit held that dismissals of habeas petitions and appeals challenging confinement cannot count as PLRA strikes, reversing and remanding for IFP consideration.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether habeas dismissals count as PLRA strikes	Jones argues habeas dismissals cannot count as strikes	Defendants argue the terms ‘action’ and ‘appeal’ cover habeas proceedings	Habeas dismissals cannot count as strikes

Re Reyes v. Keane, 90 F.3d 676 (2d Cir. 1996) (habeas petitions not civil actions under PLRA)
Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2005) (habeas dismissals not strikes; civil-rights focus of PLRA)
Mitchell v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 587 F.3d 415 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (habeas dismissals not strikes; circuits align)
Jennings v. Natrona County Detention Center Med Facility, 175 F.3d 775 (10th Cir. 1999) (habeas petitions not subject to PLRA strikes)
Paige v. Bacarise, 80 F. App’x 299 (5th Cir. 2003) (habeas petitions not counted as strikes)
Chavis v. Chappius, 618 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2010) (separate strike for independently dismissed appeals)
Re Reyes v. Keane, 90 F.3d 676 (2d Cir. 1996) (habeas petitions not civil actions under PLRA (clarifying habeas scope))