Duvall v. Miller
| Decision Date | 05 September 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 96-4104,96-4104 |
| Citation | 122 F.3d 489 |
| Parties | Jimmy Dale DUVALL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles MILLER and Bruce Lemmon, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Jimmy D. Duvall (submitted on briefs), Pendleton, IN, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Before POSNER, Chief Judge, and EASTERBROOK and MANION, Circuit Judges.
Duvall, an inmate of an Indiana prison, filed this suit against his keepers, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that his prison file contains erroneous information. The suit patently fails to state a claim, for the reasons explained by the district court in dismissing the suit; the appeal from the dismissal is frivolous; and the only reason for our publishing an opinion is to decide the hitherto open question whether our dismissal of the appeal is a "strike" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which limits the right of a prisoner to bring a federal civil rights suit after he has accrued three strikes. The dismissal of his suit in the district court was of course a strike. But the appeal was not taken in forma pauperis; Duvall paid the full fee after the district court rejected his motion to be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis. The question is whether dismissal on one of the grounds specified in section 1915(g) counts as a strike if the dismissal is of a paid appeal, or equally, we suppose, of a paid suit in the district court.
Section 1915 is the provision of the Judicial Code that allows the filing of federal suits by persons unable to afford the normal filing fee. This is a privilege that Congress has decided, in the Prison Litigation Reform Act that added subsection (g) to the statute, should be withheld from any prisoner who (in the language of the subsection) "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." This does not say, "brought an action or appeal in forma pauperis," or "brought an action or appeal under this section" (section 1915 is captioned "proceedings in forma pauperis"). The only reason we can think of for interpolating such a limitation is that a prisoner who had paid for the previous suit or appeal had by doing so manifested a greater seriousness...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Byrd v. Shannon
...v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 350 Fed.Appx. 278, 279 (10th Cir.2009); Hyland v. Clinton, 3 Fed.Appx. 478, 479 (6th Cir.2001); Duvall v. Miller, 122 F.3d 489, 490 (7th Cir.1997). No court of appeals has held that strikes may only be accrued in IFP actions or appeals. 2 This situation presents an is......
-
Rivera v. Allin
...upon the federal courts' ability to adjudicate independently frequent filer prisoners' "fourth through nth cases[.]" Duvall v. Miller, 122 F.3d 489, 490 (7th Cir.1997). Specifically, Rivera argues that section 1915(g) prevents courts from deciding these cases on their merits and, at most, a......
-
Byrd v. Shannon
...v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 350 Fed.Appx. 278, 279 (10th Cir.2009); Hyland v. Clinton, 3 Fed.Appx. 478, 479 (6th Cir.2001); Duvall v. Miller, 122 F.3d 489, 490 (7th Cir.1997). No court of appeals has held that strikes may only be accrued in IFP actions or appeals. 2 This situation presents an is......
-
Jones v. Moorjani
...v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 350 F. App'x 278, 279 (10th Cir. 2009); Hyland v. Clinton, 3 F. App'x 478, 479 (6th Cir. 2001); Duvall v. Miller, 122 F.3d 489, 490 (7th Cir. 1997). Most recently, the Third Circuit looked to the statutory language of § 1915(g) and found that it "has a reasonably plai......
-
Prison Litigation Reform
...Kupers, 128 F.3d 1310 (9th Cir. 1997); Keaner v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole, 128 F.3d 143 (3d Cir. 1997); Duvall v. Miller, 122 F.3d 489 (7th Cir. 1997); Gibbs v. Roman, 116 F.3d 83 (3d Cir. 1997); Arvie v. Lastrapes, 106 F.3d 1230 (5th Cir. 1997); Green v. Nottingham, 90 F.3d......