Garcia v. Silbert
Decision Date | 22 April 1998 |
Docket Number | No. 96-2154,96-2154 |
Citation | 141 F.3d 1415 |
Parties | 98 CJ C.A.R. 1956 Jesse L. GARCIA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mimi H. SILBERT, President/CEO/Delancey Street/New Mexico and Peter Antenirol, Acting Medical Nurse, in their individual and official capacities, Defendants-Appellees. New Mexico Corrections Department, Amicus Curiae. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Submitted on the briefs: *
Adam G. Kurtz, Albuquerque, NM, for Plaintiff--Appellant.
Nick D'Angelo, General Counsel, New Mexico Corrections Department (Ida M. Lujan, Special Assistant Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, on the Brief), as amicus curiae, by leave of Court, in support of Appellees.
Before TACHA, KELLY and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
Today we determine whether a provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PLRA"), 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), applies to actions pending when the PLRA took effect. Based on the statutory language of § 1915(g), we conclude that it applies only to actions brought after the effective date of the PLRA. Consequently, we reverse the judgment of the district court and remand for further proceedings.
Jesse Garcia, currently incarcerated in a New Mexico correctional facility, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on April 9, 1996. He claims that an alleged failure to provide adequate medical and dental care violated his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. On April 18, Mr. Garcia was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The PLRA was enacted on April 26, 1996. It provides:
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) (emphasis added). Shortly thereafter, relying on the newly enacted § 1915(g), the district court found that Garcia had filed at least three actions in the District of New Mexico that had been dismissed as frivolous and rejected his present claims sua sponte.
The district court's decision was in error because the plain language of § 1915(g) restricts a prisoner's ability to "bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil action" in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (emphasis added). It does not apply to actions pending at the time the PLRA went into effect. See Abdul-Wadood v. Nathan, 91 F.3d 1023, 1025 (7th Cir.1996) (); see also Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244, 275 n. 29, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 1502 n. 29, 128 L.Ed.2d 229 (1994) () ; White v. Gregory, 87 F.3d 429, 430 (10th Cir.1996) ( ). Because it is uncontested that Garcia brought his claim before the district court prior to the effective date of the PLRA, we conclude that the district court erred in dismissing his claim under § 1915(g). 1
The New Mexico Corrections Department argues that our decision in Green v. Nottingham, 90 F.3d 415, 420 (10th Cir.1996), mandates a different result. 2 The state's argument, however, misreads that decision. Although one court has relied on our decision in Green to conclude that § 1915(g) applies to pending cases, see Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 385-86 (5th Cir.1996), Green merely holds that courts must consider cases dismissed prior to the effective date of § 1915(g) in determining whether the criteria for dismissal under § 1915(g) have been satisfied. Green, however, does not address whether § 1915(g) applies to suits pending at the PLRA's enactment. That question is answered by plain meaning analysis.
REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings not inconsistent...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rivera v. Allin
...to the effective date of the PLRA may be counted toward the 'three strikes' referred to in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)."); Garcia v. Silbert, 141 F.3d 1415, 1417 (10th Cir.1998) ("[C]ourts must consider cases dismissed prior to [April 26, 1996] in determining whether the criteria for dismissal unde......
-
Isby v. Brown
...applied and he had not alleged imminent harm, so long as the plaintiff paid in full the filing fees owed to the court. See 141 F.3d 1415, 1417 n.1 (10th Cir. 1998) ; see also Smith v. Veterans Admin. , 636 F.3d 1306, 1309–10 (10th Cir. 2011) ("we have long recognized that we retain discreti......
-
Craig v. Eberly
...prong of the Landgraf/Lindh test, we conclude that § 1997e(e) does not apply retroactively. Our recent decision in Garcia v. Silbert, 141 F.3d 1415 (10th Cir.1998), bolsters our conclusion regarding the prospective language of § 1997e(e). In Garcia, we held that another provision of the PLR......
-
Smith v. Veterans Admin.
...appeal. See Dubuc v. Johnson, 314 F.3d 1205, 1208–10 (10th Cir.2003) (holding that under Tenth Circuit precedent, Garcia v. Silbert, 141 F.3d 1415, 1417 n. 1 (10th Cir.1998), “the court retains discretion to ignore the ‘in no event’ language of” § 1915(g), but that such discretion neverthel......