875 F.3d 1304
10th Cir.2017Background
- Plaintiff Marcus Woodson, an Oklahoma state prisoner, sued state prison officials in Oklahoma state court and proceeded in forma pauperis (IFP) under state law.
- Defendants removed the case to federal court and, as required by statute for removed actions, paid the federal filing fee.
- Woodson had three prior federal dismissals for frivolousness (three strikes) and did not qualify for the imminent-danger exception under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
- The district court concluded § 1915(g) required Woodson to pay the federal filing fee and dismissed his case for failure to pay, treating the removal as subjecting him to the federal three-strikes rule.
- Woodson appealed; the Tenth Circuit reviewed de novo whether § 1915(g) applied to a state-court plaintiff whose case was removed by defendants and who did not seek IFP in federal court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1915(g) bars a state-court plaintiff (removed by defendant) from proceeding without paying the federal filing fee | § 1915(g) does not apply because Woodson did not bring the action "under this section" and did not seek federal IFP | § 1915(g) applies to any prisoner-plaintiff in federal court with three strikes, regardless of how the case reached federal court | Reversed: § 1915(g) does not apply to a state-court plaintiff whose case was removed by defendants when the plaintiff did not invoke § 1915 and did not seek federal IFP |
Key Cases Cited
- Coleman v. Tollefson, 135 S. Ct. 1759 (2015) (construing § 1915 and explaining purpose of IFP and three-strikes rule)
- Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521 (2011) (describing PLRA measures limiting frivolous prisoner suits)
- Harris v. Mangum, 863 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir.) (case holding removal by defendants means § 1915(g) does not bar a removed state-court action)
- White v. Colorado, 157 F.3d 1226 (10th Cir.) (noting three-strikes prisoners must prepay fees but are not absolutely barred)
- Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307 (3d Cir.) (observing prisoners barred from federal IFP may pursue state-court relief)
- Wilson v. Yaklich, 148 F.3d 596 (6th Cir.) (noting distinction between federal and state IFP eligibility)
- Scanlon White, Inc. v. C.I.R., 472 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir.) (stating statutory interpretation is reviewed de novo)