938 F.3d 380
2d Cir.2019Background
- Plaintiff William Escalera, Jr., a pro se prisoner, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint that the district court dismissed sua sponte under the PLRA "three‑strikes" rule, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
- The district court relied on a prior decision (Escalera v. Graham) identifying five prior dismissals as strikes, concluding Escalera had accrued three strikes and was barred from proceeding IFP.
- The Second Circuit reviewed de novo whether prior dismissals qualified as strikes under § 1915(g) and examined the five referenced prior cases.
- The court held the statutory text treats a "strike" as an action or appeal dismissed in its entirety on an enumerated ground (frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim), not as individual claims within a mixed disposition.
- Applying that rule, the Second Circuit found three of the five prior dismissals did not qualify as strikes because they were procedural dismissals, grants of summary judgment based on lack of evidence, or mixed dismissals including non‑§1915(g) grounds.
- The Second Circuit vacated the district court's dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's / District Court's Position | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a "strike" can be incurred when only some claims in an action are dismissed on §1915(g) grounds (mixed dismissal) | Escalera: mixed dismissals should not count; strike requires entire action or appeal dismissed on enumerated ground | District court treated certain mixed dismissals as strikes | Held: A strike requires dismissal of the entire action or appeal on a §1915(g) ground; mixed dismissals are not strikes |
| Whether dismissal for procedural defects (e.g., illegible amended complaint) counts as a strike | Escalera: procedural, remediable defects are not §1915(g) strikes | District court counted such procedural dismissals as strikes | Held: Procedural dismissals for remediable defects do not qualify as strikes |
| Whether summary judgment dismissal for lack of evidentiary support is a §1915(g) strike | Escalera: summary judgment for lack of evidence is not a §1915(g) dismissal | District court counted such summary‑judgment dismissals as strikes | Held: A grant of summary judgment because evidence does not support claims is not a §1915(g) strike absent an explicit §1915(g) basis |
| Whether a dismissal that combines failure to state a claim and lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction counts as a strike | Escalera: mixed §1915(g) and non‑§1915(g) grounds should not produce a strike | District court treated the mixed dismissal as a strike | Held: Mixed dismissals that include non‑§1915(g) grounds (e.g., lack of jurisdiction) are not strikes; only entire actions dismissed on enumerated grounds qualify |
Key Cases Cited
- Tafari v. Hues, 473 F.3d 440 (2d Cir. 2007) (interpreting §1915(g) and limits on strikes)
- Snider v. Melindez, 199 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 1999) (procedural dismissals do not trigger §1915(g))
- Brown v. Megg, 857 F.3d 287 (5th Cir.) (strike limited to entire action or appeal)
- Byrd v. Shannon, 715 F.3d 117 (3d Cir. 2013) (entire action or appeal must be dismissed to count as a strike)
- Washington v. L.A. Cty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 833 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2016) (mixed dismissals do not count as strikes)
- Turley v. Gaetz, 625 F.3d 1005 (7th Cir. 2010) (strike incurred only when action dismissed in its entirety on enumerated grounds)
- El‑Shaddai v. Zamora, 833 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2016) (distinguishing dismissals for lack of evidence from §1915(g) strikes)
- Blakely v. Wards, 738 F.3d 607 (4th Cir. 2013) (summary judgment posture is not dispositive; the basis of dismissal controls)