Skip to main content

THREE-STRIKES PROVISION

Coleman v. Tollefson et al.

Issues

Under the three-strikes provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, does a dismissal of a frivolous or meritless suit at the district court level count as a third strike, precluding a subsequent suit, or must the appeals process be final for the strike to take effect?

The Supreme Court will decide whether, under the three-strikes provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“§ 1915”), a district court’s dismissal of a suit counts as a strike while it is still pending on appeal or before the time for seeking appellate review has passed. Andre Lee Coleman, a prisoner in Michigan, was barred under § 1915 from proceeding on a fourth action in forma pauperis while the decision from a previous action was on appeal in district court. Coleman argues that the district court improperly dismissed his action when it counted the pending appeal of his action as a third strike in accordance with § 1915(g). However, Tollefson counters that the strike should be in effect after the district court dismissal due to the PLRA’s text and Congress’s desire to ban meritless claims. This decision has the potential to affect how the statute is interpreted in the lower courts and the caseload volume of court dockets.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Under the "three strikes" provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. 1915(g), does a district court's dismissal of a lawsuit count as a "strike" while it is still pending on appeal or before the time for seeking appellate review has passed?

Andre Lee Coleman is a prisoner in the state of Michigan, and he has filed at least three actions or appeals of the type proscribed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Coleman v. Tollefson et al., 733 F.3d 175, 176 (6th Cir.

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0
Subscribe to THREE-STRIKES PROVISION