96 F.4th 249
2d Cir.2024Background
- Maurice Cotton, an inmate, filed a pro se civil rights lawsuit in 2018 in the Western District of New York, alleging wrongful denial of a prison transfer and retaliation for filing grievances.
- Cotton sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) due to indigency under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
- The district court denied IFP status, ruling Cotton had incurred three “strikes” under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) from prior cases dismissed in 1991, 2006, and 2007.
- The court counted dismissals in three previous cases (McCarthy, Titone, and Lema) as strikes barring further IFP status.
- Cotton appealed, arguing that none of these dismissals should count as PLRA strikes.
- The Second Circuit reviewed the denial de novo and ultimately vacated and remanded, finding the dismissals did not meet the PLRA strike criteria.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the McCarthy dismissal counts as a PLRA strike | Mixed dismissals do not count as strikes | The entire action was dismissed for failure to state a claim | Mixed dismissals are not strikes; McCarthy does not count |
| Whether the Titone dismissal counts as a PLRA strike | No strike accrues if leave to amend is granted and not acted upon | Dismissal for failure to comply with Rule 8 and no amended complaint means a strike | No strike because the suit continued and no amended complaint was filed |
| Whether the Lema (Heck v. Humphrey) dismissal counts as a PLRA strike | Heck dismissals are about timing, not the merits, and should not count as strikes | Heck dismissals are Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals and presumptively count as strikes | Heck dismissals based on prematurity/timing do not categorically count; Lema does not count as a strike |
| Ripeness of deciding if Lema is a strike for future cases | Necessary for clarity and Cotton’s rights | Not necessary because McCarthy/Titone are sufficient | Prudential and constitutional ripeness; court reached and decided the issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (whether favorable termination is required for certain § 1983 claims; governs when § 1983 claims accrue)
- Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (collateral order doctrine supporting appellate jurisdiction)
- Chavis v. Chappius, 618 F.3d 162 (PLRA’s provision barring repeated IFP lawsuits)
- Harris v. City of N.Y., 607 F.3d 18 (explains three strikes rule’s application)
- Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez, 140 S. Ct. 1721 (clarifies when a dismissal counts as a strike under the PLRA)
- Snider v. Melindez, 199 F.3d 108 (dismissals for remediable procedural flaws don’t count as strikes)
- Tafari v. Hues, 473 F.3d 440 (premature dismissals not strikes under PLRA)