2020 COA 168
Colo. Ct. App.2020Background
- Pro se prisoner Justin Rueb filed a district‑court complaint asserting claims that arose partly from prison conditions (e.g., confiscation of property, denial of access/compensation) and partly from non‑prison events (e.g., arrest and prosecution).
- Rueb requested to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP); the district court initially granted IFP but defendants moved for reconsideration arguing Rueb had three or more prior “strikes.”
- The record showed at least four prior Colorado state actions by Rueb were dismissed as frivolous, groundless, or for failure to state a claim (i.e., strikes under § 13‑17.5‑102.7(1)).
- The district court concluded the three‑strikes rule applied, gave Rueb 30 days to pay the filing fee, and dismissed the complaint when he failed to pay.
- Rueb appealed, arguing the three‑strikes statute does not apply because his complaint included non‑prison‑condition claims (and he raised other substantive challenges), but the Court of Appeals reviewed only the IFP/three‑strikes issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 13‑17.5‑102.7(1) bars IFP where a complaint mixes prison‑condition and non‑prison‑condition claims | Rueb: statute applies only to actions solely "based upon prison conditions," so mixed complaints fall outside the three‑strikes bar | Defendants: statute applies if any part of the civil action is based on prison conditions; three strikes make IFP unavailable for the action | Court: statute applies to a civil action that contains prison‑condition claims even if it also alleges non‑prison claims; dismissal for failure to pay was proper |
| Whether dismissal for failure to pay after being given time to pay was improper | Rueb: he should have been allowed IFP or his non‑prison claims excused from the rule | Defendants: court properly required payment because Rueb had three strikes for prison‑condition suits | Court: giving Rueb 30 days to pay complied with the statute; his failure to pay justified dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Asphalt Specialties Co., Inc. v. City of Commerce City, 218 P.3d 741 (Colo. App. 2009) (standard of review for de novo legal dismissal)
- Ceja v. Lemire, 154 P.3d 1064 (Colo. 2007) (statutory interpretation uses plain and ordinary meaning)
- Brown v. Megg, 857 F.3d 287 (5th Cir. 2017) (court rejects attempts to recharacterize claims to evade three‑strikes bar)
- Adams v. McGinnis, 317 F. Supp. 2d 246 (W.D.N.Y. 2004) (three‑strikes rule cannot be avoided by styling the pleading differently)
- Lopez v. Haywood, 41 A.3d 184 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2012) (inmate with three strikes may still proceed by paying the filing fee)