251 F. Supp. 3d 257
D.D.C.2017Background
- Pro se prisoner Alexander Otis Matthews filed suit against the FBI; the district court previously found he had accumulated three or more "strikes" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and dismissed the action without prejudice.
- Matthews moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) for reconsideration, arguing that only one of the four prior dismissals the court relied on should count as a strike.
- The court examined four prior cases referenced in its earlier opinion: Matthews v. Sobh; Matthews v. Hull; Matthews v. Sullivan; and Matthews v. HSBC Bank USA.
- The court treated Sobh and Sullivan as qualifying strikes; Matthews conceded Hull was a strike; the court declined to decide whether the HSBC dismissal counted because at least three strikes were already established.
- The court denied Matthews’s Rule 59(e) motion but concluded its prior dismissal was premature because strikes do not foreclose suit entirely — they bar proceeding IFP without paying the filing fee.
- On its own motion, the court vacated the dismissal, revoked Matthews’s IFP status, and ordered him to pay the full filing fee within 30 days or face dismissal without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Matthews has 3+ strikes under § 1915(g) | Sobh, Sullivan, and HSBC should not count; only one qualifies | Prior dismissals qualify as strikes; at least three prior dismissals count | Court: At least three strikes exist (Sobh, Hull, Sullivan); Matthews ineligible for IFP; HSBC need not be decided |
| Effect of a pending motion to remove a strike (Sobh) | A pending motion in Sobh should prevent that dismissal from counting as a strike | A pending motion does not negate the prior dismissal; Coleman analogizes to appeals | Court: A dismissal counts as a strike despite a pending motion for reconsideration; Sobh counts |
| Whether dismissals without prejudice or on procedural grounds (Heck/standing) count as strikes (Sullivan, HSBC) | Sullivan’s dismissal without prejudice and HSBC’s jurisdictional dismissal should not count | Dismissals for failure to state a claim or as frivolous count; Heck dismissals count; standing/ jurisdictional dismissals typically do not | Court: Sullivan counts (Heck and frivolous/FTSCL grounds); HSBC left undecided because three strikes already shown |
| Proper remedy when a prisoner is subject to § 1915(g) | Court previously dismissed case without prejudice | Defendant (and court) note standard practice is to revoke IFP and allow fee payment before dismissal | Court: Denies reconsideration; vacates prior dismissal, revokes IFP, and orders payment of full filing fee within 30 days or dismissal without prejudice if unpaid |
Key Cases Cited
- Coleman v. Tollefson, 135 S. Ct. 1759 (Sup. Ct. 2015) (a prior dismissal counts as a strike even if it is the subject of an appeal)
- Thompson v. DEA, 492 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (three-strikes rule and treatment of jurisdictional dismissals)
- In re Jones, 652 F.3d 36 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (dismissals barred by Heck count as strikes)
- Asemani v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 797 F.3d 1069 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (procedure: revoke IFP and order fee payment when prisoner is ineligible)
- Pinson v. Samuels, 761 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (same procedural approach for § 1915(g) cases)