Joshua Simons v. Heidi Washington
996 F.3d 350
6th Cir.2021Background
- Joshua Simons, an incarcerated Michigan prisoner, had funds in his Inmate Trust Account reduced to repair a broken prison window.
- Simons filed a pro se federal complaint alleging the fund seizure violated state and federal law.
- The district court granted in forma pauperis status and screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
- The court dismissed Simons’s federal claims on the merits, declined supplemental jurisdiction over state claims, and annotated the dismissal as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
- Simons appealed the court’s notation that the dismissal counted as a § 1915(g) strike; the appeal raised who may determine strikes and when.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a court that dismisses a prisoner’s suit may bind later courts by declaring the dismissal a § 1915(g) strike | Simons: the district court erred in labeling the dismissal a strike and such a label should not bind future courts | State: dismissal properly counted and court may note it as a strike | The dismissing court cannot bind later courts; a later (fourth or subsequent) court must decide whether prior dismissals count as strikes |
| Whether a dismissing court may nonetheless make a non-binding recommendation that the dismissal be treated as a strike | Simons: such recommendations are improper | State: courts may provide guidance about consequences | Yes; the court may issue non-binding strike recommendations/warnings to inform the inmate and future courts |
| Whether Article III forbids a dismissing court from making a non-binding strike recommendation | Simons: such a notation may violate Article III’s case-or-controversy limits | State: Article III does not bar advisory or consequential statements in orders | No; non-binding statements about future consequences are permissible and not prohibited by Article III |
Key Cases Cited
- Bruce v. Samuels, 577 U.S. 82 (2016) (describing in forma pauperis fee obligations for prisoners)
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007) (context on PLRA’s constraints on prisoner litigation)
- Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez, 140 S. Ct. 1721 (2020) (defining when prior dismissals qualify under § 1915(g))
- Furnace v. Giurbino, 838 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2016) (later court must assess prior dismissals for strikes)
- Fourstar v. Garden City Grp., Inc., 875 F.3d 1147 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (later tribunal should independently evaluate prior dismissals)
- Hill v. Madison County, 983 F.3d 904 (7th Cir. 2020) (text of § 1915(g) reserves strike calls to later courts; endorses non-binding warnings)
- Coleman v. Tollefson, 575 U.S. 532 (2015) (context on accumulation of prior dismissals under statute)
- Deleon v. Doe, 361 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2004) (dismissing court may not make a binding strike call under Article III)
- Dooley v. Wetzel, 957 F.3d 366 (3d Cir. 2020) (similar Article III concerns about binding strike calls)
- Camreta v. Greene, 563 U.S. 692 (2011) (distinguishing reviewable judgments from non-binding portions of opinions)