Moore v. Maricopa County Sheriff's Office
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 18865
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Moore, indigent frequent filer, seeks damages from Maricopa County Sheriff's Office for alleged prisoner mistreatment.
- Moore sought in forma pauperis (IFP) status; district court held four prior actions by Moore qualified as strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
- Plaintiff argues only two of those prior dismissals qualify as strikes; the district court erred.
- During the appeal, Moore was released on parole, raising mootness arguments under § 1915(g).
- Court concludes only two of the four prior dismissals were strikes and the appeal is not moot because relief can be provided within the current case on remand.
- Remands to reconsider IFP eligibility consistent with this opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissals for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction count as 'strikes. | Moore argues lack-of-jurisdiction dismissals should not count as strikes. | Maricopa County argues all four dismissals count as strikes. | No; 12(b)(1) dismissals do not count as strikes. |
| Whether the appeal is moot after Moore’s release on parole. | Moore contends mootness bars appellate relief. | Mootness defeats only some relief, not the underlying action. | Not moot because relief can be granted within the current case on remand. |
| Scope of the three-strikes rule in counting prior dismissals. | Only two of four dismissals were true strikes. | District court did not err in counting four strikes. | Only the 12(b)(6)-type dismissals count as strikes; remand for proper counting. |
Key Cases Cited
- Thompson v. DEA, 492 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (dismissals for lack of jurisdiction are not strikes under § 1915(g))
- Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2007) (§ 1915(g) analysis and 'fails to state a claim' parallels 12(b)(6))
- Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2005) (interpretation of 'fails to state a claim' for strikes)
- Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678 (U.S. 1946) (jurisdiction first, then merits; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction before merits)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1998) (court must have jurisdiction before addressing merits)