Kevin Williams v. Pennsylvania Department of Cor
695 F. App'x 654
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Kevin Williams, a state prisoner, filed a § 1983 civil-rights action in the Middle District of Pennsylvania and applied to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP).
- The Magistrate Judge initially denied IFP under the PLRA three-strikes rule (28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)); the Clerk had authorized payment from Williams’s prisoner account before that denial.
- The District Court affirmed the IFP denial, listing seven prior Williams actions as strikes but providing no detailed analysis initially, and ordered prepayment of the filing fee after finding no imminent danger.
- After Williams did not pay, a Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal; Williams objected, disputing that he had three strikes and suggesting possible identity confusion.
- On reconsideration the District Court identified three prior cases it concluded were strikes and dismissed Williams’s complaint for failure to pay the filing fee; Williams appealed.
- The Third Circuit reviewed de novo, examined the prior dockets and records, and concluded the identified prior dismissals did not conclusively qualify as strikes under Byrd, so it vacated the IFP denial and the dismissal and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Williams had three qualifying "strikes" under § 1915(g) when he filed | Williams argued he did not have three prior dismissals that count as strikes and suggested possible identity confusion with another inmate | District Court/defendants relied on multiple prior Williams cases listed in the dockets as dismissals and counted three as strikes | The Third Circuit held the listed prior dismissals did not conclusively qualify as strikes under Byrd; Williams did not have three strikes based on the record reviewed |
| Whether certain prior dismissals counted as strikes when records are missing or unclear | Williams argued missing/unclear records cannot support strikes | Court relied on available docket entries to count strikes | The Third Circuit held a dismissal counts only if the record shows it was explicitly for frivolous, malicious, or failure-to-state-a-claim-type grounds or under rules/statutes limited to those bases; missing/ambiguous records do not establish strikes |
| Whether summary judgment or dismissals without prejudice count as strikes | Williams argued such outcomes should not be counted as strikes here | District Court had treated at least one summary-judgment dismissal and some dismissals without prejudice as strikes | The Third Circuit held summary-judgment dismissal does not automatically count as a strike under Byrd, and it declined to decide categorically whether some dismissals without prejudice count, since Williams lacked three clear strikes |
| Whether dismissal for failure to pay filing fee was appropriate after erroneous IFP denial | Williams argued dismissal was improper because he was wrongly denied IFP | Defendants/court ordered dismissal because fee was unpaid following IFP denial | The Third Circuit vacated the denial of IFP and the dismissal for failure to pay, remanding for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Byrd v. Shannon, 715 F.3d 117 (3d Cir. 2013) (defines what dismissals qualify as strikes under § 1915(g))
- Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307 (3d Cir. 2001) (establishes de novo review standard for § 1915(g) legal questions)
- Gibbs v. Cross, 160 F.3d 962 (3d Cir. 1998) (jurisdictional/standard authority cited for § 1915(g) review)
- Orr v. Clements, 688 F.3d 463 (8th Cir. 2012) (example of treating some dismissals without prejudice as strikes)
- McLean v. United States, 566 F.3d 391 (4th Cir. 2009) (example of holding that dismissals without prejudice for failure to state a claim do not count as strikes)