Dupree v. Palmer, 01-14726. Non-Argument Calendar.
Decision Date | 07 March 2002 |
Docket Number | No. 01-14726. Non-Argument Calendar.,01-14726. Non-Argument Calendar. |
Parties | William A. DUPREE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R.W. PALMER, Officer, sued in his individual capacity and official capacity, A.A. Higgs, Sgt., sued in his individual capacity and official capacity, et. al., Defendants-Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
William A. Dupree, Jacksonville, FL, pro se.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
Before DUBINA, BLACK and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.
William A. Dupree, a state prisoner, appeals the district court's order dismissing his pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint. The district court dismissed Dupree's complaint without prejudice under the three strikes provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), without allowing him an opportunity to pay the filing fee. We affirm.
Dupree first argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion to proceed in forma pauperis and then dismissing his § 1983 civil rights complaint under the three strikes provision of § 1915(g), without allowing him an opportunity to arrange payment of the $150.00 filing fee. Dupree argues that since the district court only denied his motion to proceed in forma pauperis, he should have been allowed an opportunity to pay the filing fee in order to proceed with his complaint.
This court reviews de novo the district court's interpretation of the Prison Litigation Reform Act's (PLRA) filing fee provision. Hubbard v. Haley, 262 F.3d 1194, 1196 (11th Cir.), petition for cert. filed, (U.S. Nov. 19, 2001) (No. 01-7093). The "three strikes rule" of the PLRA states:
In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (1994).
The purpose of the PLRA is to curtail abusive prisoner litigation. Section 1915 "only allows a prisoner to file three meritless suits at the reduced rate provided by that section." Vanderberg v. Donaldson, 259 F.3d 1321, 1324 (11th Cir.2001). "After the third meritless suit, the prisoner must pay the full filing fee at the time he initiates suit." Id.
This court has not directly addressed whether the district court must give a prisoner an opportunity to pay the full filing fee prior to dismissing a § 1983 complaint pursuant to the three strikes provision of § 1915(g). We stated in Vanderberg, however, that after three meritless suits, a prisoner must pay the full filing fee at the time he initiates suit.
This court has affirmed district courts' orders dismissing § 1983 complaints without prejudice pursuant to § 1915 in cases that raised other issues. See Rivera v. Allin, 144 F.3d 719, 732 (11th Cir.1998) ( ); Medberry v. Butler, 185 F.3d 1189, 1192 (11th Cir.1999) ( ). Further, both the Ninth Circuit and the Sixth Circuit have affirmed district courts' orders dismissing cases without prejudice under the three strikes provision of § 1915(g). See Shabazz v. Campbell, 12 Fed.Appx. 329, 330 (6th Cir.2001) (unpublished) ( ); McGee v. Myers, 10 Fed.Appx. 528, 529 (9th Cir.2001) (unpublished) ( ).
Thus, we conclude that the proper procedure is for the district court to dismiss the complaint without prejudice when it denies the prisoner leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to the three strikes provision of § 1915(g). The prisoner cannot simply pay the filing fee after being denied in forma pauperis status. He must pay the filing fee at the time he initiates the suit. Accordingly, in the instant case, we conclude that the district court properly dismissed Dupree's complaint without prejudice.
Dupree next argues that this case should be reversed and remanded to the district court because it is moot. According to Dupree, since he has now paid the filing fee for this case in full, his complaint is re-instated and the appeal is moot.
In Tallahassee Mem'l Reg'l Med. Ctr. v. Bowen, 815 F.2d 1435 (11th Cir.1987), we addressed the issue of mootness. We held that "[t]he case or controversy requirement of the Constitution requires that moot cases be dismissed; in a moot case, there is no longer the vitality and interest among the parties that our adversary system of justice requires." Id. at 1448. As the Supreme Court has made clear, the "burden of demonstrating mootness `is a heavy one.'" County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 631, 99 S.Ct. 1379, 1383, 59 L.Ed.2d 642 (1979) (citation...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hall v. United States
...without providing such an opportunity. See id. at *4. District courts often follow the Eleventh Circuit's rule from Dupree v. Palmer , 284 F.3d 1234, 1236 (11th Cir. 2002), holding that denial of a request to proceed in forma pauperis should result in the automatic dismissal of the suit wit......
-
Schmidt v. Fla. First Dist. Court of Appeal
...at the time he initiates his lawsuit, and his failure to do so warrants dismissal of his case without prejudice. See Dupree v. Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234, 1236 (11th Cir. 2002) (holding that "the proper procedure is for the district court to dismiss the complaint without prejudice when it denies......
-
Hochstadt v. Israel
...prejudice to the plaintiff to file a newcomplaint accompanied by payment of the full filing fee of $350.00. See Dupree v. Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234, 1236 (11th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff should be aware that all civil lawsuits brought by prisoners seeking relief from a governmental entity, officer, ......
-
BELL v. DILEO
...In Dupree v. Palmer, the Eleventh Circuit held that denial of in forma pauperis status under § 1915(g) mandated dismissal. See 284 F.3d 1234 (11th Cir. 2002). The court specifically held that "the prisoner cannot simply pay the filing fee after being denied IFP status" because "[h]e must pa......
-
A Felicitous Meme: the Eleventh Circuit Solves the Preiser Puzzle?
...to prisoners complaining only of mistreatment during their legal incarceration."). 65. Terrell, 564 F.3d at 448.66. Dupree v. Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234, 1236 (11th Cir. 2002).67. Nettles, 830 F.3d at 932.68. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).69. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) (1996).70. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (1996).7......
-
Appellate Practice and Procedure - K. Todd Butler
...a fee upon such business, unless such Act specifically relates to the business of insurance." Id. (quoting 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1012). 108. 284 F.3d 1234 (11th Cir. 2002). 109. Id. at 1235. The Prison Litigation Reform Act is codified at 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(2000). 110. 285 F.3d 947 (11th Cir. 20......
-
Dupree v. Palmer.
...Appeals Court PLRA -- Prison Litigation Reform Act IN FORMA PAUPERIS Dupree v. Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234 (11th Cir. 2002). A prisoner brought an in forma pauperis civil rights action and the district court determined that the prisoner was not entitled to that status under the provisions of the ......