65 F.4th 141
4th Cir.2023Background
- Kevin Pitts, a state prisoner, filed a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint and moved to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). The district court granted IFP and the case was screened by a magistrate judge.
- The magistrate judge recommended dismissal under Heck v. Humphrey (claim barred unless conviction invalidated), sovereign immunity, and prosecutorial immunity, and recommended designating the dismissal a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
- The district court adopted the report, dismissed the complaint without prejudice and without service, and expressly declared the dismissal to “constitute a ‘strike’” under § 1915(g).
- Pitts appealed solely challenging the district court’s contemporaneous strike designation, arguing district courts lack authority to make binding strike rulings and that Heck- or immunity-based dismissals do not qualify as strikes.
- The court of appeals held that a district court may not contemporaneously make a binding § 1915(g) strike determination and therefore vacated that portion of the district court’s order; it declined to decide whether the dismissal actually qualifies as a strike, leaving that for a later court considering a future IFP application.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a district court may contemporaneously adjudicate that its dismissal counts as a § 1915(g) “strike.” | Pitts: No statutory authority; strike determinations are a backward‑looking inquiry for a later court reviewing a new IFP motion. | Appellees/Amicus: District courts may state their view; such proclamations are harmless or at most dicta. | Court: District courts may not make binding contemporaneous strike determinations; that task is reserved for the later court adjudicating a subsequent IFP request. |
| If a dismissing court nevertheless designates a strike, what is the proper remedy? | Pitts: Vacate the strike designation. | Appellees/Amicus: Treat contemporaneous designations as nonbinding dicta and leave them in place or reviewable. | Court: Vacate the contemporaneous strike designation (modify district court order); do not resolve the merits on appeal. |
| Whether a Heck- or immunity-based dismissal qualifies as a § 1915(g) strike. | Pitts: Immunity-based and Heck-based dismissals should not count as strikes (Congress omitted immunity; Heck makes claims premature like exhaustion dismissals). | Appellees: The district court found the dismissal fit § 1915(g) categories (failure to state a claim). | Court: Did not decide on the merits; left to future court considering a new IFP application to count strikes. |
| Whether the issue raises Article III ripeness/jurisdiction problems for contemporaneous strike rulings. | Pitts: Also argued lack of Article III jurisdiction because the strike question is not ripe until a later IFP application. | Appellees: Not squarely argued; some courts frame question statutorily. | Court: Declined to resolve Article III question, deciding it on statutory grounds instead. |
Key Cases Cited
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1994) (bars § 1983 damages claims that would imply the invalidity of a conviction unless conviction has been reversed or otherwise set aside)
- Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422 (U.S. 2007) (courts may decide threshold nonmerits grounds before reaching the merits)
- U.S. Bancorp Mortg. Co. v. Bonner Mall P’ship, 513 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1994) (appellate vacatur appropriate for actions beyond a court’s authority)
- Simons v. Washington, 996 F.3d 350 (6th Cir. 2021) (PLRA strike counting is backward‑looking; dismissing courts should not make binding strike rulings)
- Hill v. Madison County, 983 F.3d 904 (7th Cir. 2020) (dismissal courts may not bind future courts by contemporaneous strike pronouncements)
- Dooley v. Wetzel, 957 F.3d 366 (3d Cir. 2020) (vacating contemporaneous strike designation)
- Deleon v. Doe, 361 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2004) (same)
- Fourstar v. Garden City Grp., Inc., 875 F.3d 1147 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (later court, not earlier dismissing court, must tally strikes under § 1915(g))
- Blakely v. Wards, 738 F.3d 607 (4th Cir. 2013) (a later court applying § 1915(g) must accept that prior dismissals were properly decided on their stated grounds)
- Lomax v. Ortiz‑Marquez, 140 S. Ct. 1721 (U.S. 2020) (addresses aspects of PLRA strike-counting doctrine)