Kasey Hoffmann v. L. Pulido, 928 F.3d 1147

Background

Kasey Hoffmann, a California state prisoner, filed a pro se § 1983 complaint alleging retaliation by prison guards after he complained about the kosher menu. He sought to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP).
The district court identified three prior Hoffmann cases dismissed for qualifying reasons under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g): Jones (dismissed as duplicative), CCHCS (dismissed on sovereign immunity, lack of standing, and refusal to exercise supplemental jurisdiction), and Growden (dismissed by a magistrate for failure to state a claim).
The magistrate judge ordered Hoffmann to show cause why his IFP status should not be denied under the PLRA three-strikes rule; Hoffmann’s response was late because of prison mail delays and the district court dismissed the case for failure to pay the filing fee.
Hoffmann appealed, arguing among other points that (1) Growden’s dismissal was void because a magistrate lacked authority under Williams v. King, and (2) CCHCS was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and therefore should not count as a strike under § 1915(g).
The Ninth Circuit exercised discretion to consider arguments Hoffmann raised for the first time on appeal because they were purely legal and the record was developed; it reviewed the PLRA application de novo.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Growden’s dismissal counts as a § 1915(g) strike because a magistrate lacked authority	Hoffmann: Growden is void after Williams v. King because the magistrate lacked consent/authority, so it cannot be a strike	Government: Growden is a valid prior dismissal and qualifies as a strike	Court: Denied — Growden is not void for collateral-attack purposes; at most a legal error, not lack of any arguable jurisdiction, so it counts as a prior judgment (but see overall result)
Whether CCHCS dismissal qualifies as a § 1915(g) strike	Hoffmann: CCHCS should not count because it was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds (standing)	Government: CCHCS counts as a strike	Court: Held CCHCS does not qualify as a strike because the case was dismissed, at least in part, for lack of Article III standing (a 12(b)(1)-type dismissal), and § 1915(g) targets dismissals for frivolousness or failure to state a claim (12(b)(6))
Whether multiple prior dismissals identified render Hoffmann ineligible for IFP status	Hoffmann: He had fewer qualifying strikes and thus remains eligible	Government: Hoffmann had at least three strikes and is barred under § 1915(g)	Court: Because only two prior dismissals here qualify as strikes, Hoffmann is not disqualified from IFP status on this record; district court’s dismissal vacated and case remanded
Whether a prisoner may collaterally attack a prior dismissal’s validity on PLRA strike review	Hoffmann: May challenge prior dismissal authority now	Government: Such collateral attacks are improper; challenges must be raised in the original action	Court: Collateral attacks are disfavored; jurisdictional objections must be raised while the original suit is pending; a voidness claim is narrow and requires lack of even an arguable basis for jurisdiction

Key Cases Cited

Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500 (9th Cir. 2017) (magistrate judges need consent from all parties to enter dispositive rulings)
United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260 (2010) (judgment is void for jurisdictional defect only in exceptional cases lacking even an arguable basis for jurisdiction)
Jones v. Giles, 741 F.2d 245 (9th Cir. 1984) (void-judgment doctrine narrowly construed; judgments are void only when jurisdiction is totally wanting)
Moore v. Maricopa Cty. Sheriff’s Office, 657 F.3d 890 (9th Cir. 2011) (§ 1915(g) applies to dismissals for failure to state a claim but not to dismissals for lack of jurisdiction)
Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2007) (a strike under § 1915(g) requires the case as a whole to be dismissed for a qualifying reason)