116 F.4th 200
3rd Cir.2024Background
- Quintez Talley, an incarcerated plaintiff and frequent federal court litigant, sought to proceed on appeal without prepaying filing fees (in forma pauperis, or IFP).
- Appellees argued he was barred by the “three strikes” provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), which prevents prisoners with three or more qualifying prior dismissals from proceeding IFP absent imminent danger.
- Three prior federal civil actions were offered by appellees as Talley’s potential “strikes” under PLRA.
- The court appointed amicus counsel to assess whether these three cases counted as strikes under §1915(g).
- The decision ultimately determines whether Talley can proceed with the current appeal IFP and has implications for Talley's other pending appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does dismissal for failure to file a certificate of merit (COM) in a medical malpractice claim count as a PLRA strike? | Talley: Dismissal for failing to file a COM is not a strike as it is not a dismissal for failing to state a claim. | Appellees: Dismissal for failure to file a COM does constitute a strike. | Not a strike. Dismissal based solely on failure to file a COM is not for failure to state a claim under PLRA. |
| Does dismissal with leave to amend, where plaintiff does not timely amend, count as a strike? | Talley: Not a strike unless the case is formally closed. | Appellees: Failure to amend by the deadline should count as a strike, even absent formal closure. | Not a strike. Unless the case is formally closed, the suit continues—no strike accrues. |
| Does a dismissal on alternative (enumerated and non-enumerated) grounds count as a strike? | Talley: Mixed dismissals (with some claims on non-strike grounds) do not count as strikes. | Appellees: Alternative-ground dismissal with a strike-qualifying ground is a strike. | Strike. If an entire action is dismissed and one basis is strike-qualifying, it counts as a PLRA strike. |
| Does Talley have three strikes at the time of his notice of appeal, barring IFP status? | Talley: Lacks three strikes, so should be allowed to proceed IFP. | Appellees: Talley has three strikes; IFP should be denied. | Talley only had one strike at the time; motion to proceed IFP is granted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Byrd v. Shannon, 715 F.3d 117 (3d Cir. 2013) (sets parameters for when dismissals count as PLRA strikes, including the mixed dismissal rule)
- Talley v. Wetzel, 15 F.4th 275 (3d Cir. 2021) (reiterates mixed dismissal rule—no strike unless the entire action is dismissed on strike-eligible grounds)
- Chamberlain v. Giampapa, 210 F.3d 154 (3d Cir. 2000) (affidavits or certificates of merit requirements are procedural, not pleading requirements, under federal standards)
- Liggon-Redding v. Estate of Sugarman, 659 F.3d 258 (3d Cir. 2011) (applies Chamberlain to Pennsylvania's COM rule)
- Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez, 140 S. Ct. 1721 (2020) (no strike accrues where dismissal is with leave to amend and suit continues)
- Weber v. McGrogan, 939 F.3d 232 (3d Cir. 2019) (discusses the "stand on the complaint" doctrine for finality of dismissals)