Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): only indigent inmates with three previous frivolous dismissals from filing new civil actions. Those inmates who also have filed three or more frivolous actions in the past, but have enough money to pay filing fees, can file as many new lawsuits as they can afford. Under § 1915(b), even indigent inmates have to pay the full fee eventually anyway, which serves as a financial incentive for inmates to file only actions they believe are meritorious. Stopping all further lawsuits under § 1915(g), frivolous or not, by indigent inmates with three dismissals unless imminent serious physical injury is involved would bar many other important and arguably meritorious constitutional claims by only those inmates. Cf. Rinaldi v. Yeager, 384 U.S. 305, 310, 86 S.Ct. 1497, 1500, 16 L.Ed.2d 577 (1966) (<HOLDING>). For all of these reasons, the court concludes 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the court need not follow a decision of the district of columbia court of appeals where  it appears that the  court of appeals itself would not follow that decision (B) holding that state statute which re quired reimbursement of cost of criminal appeal transcript only by incarcerated persons violated the equal protection clause the statute would burden many appeals that were not frivolous and allow many that were so it did not serve the purpose of deterring frivolous appeals (C) holding that once the court of appeals recognized that the claims of the absent parties were not frivolous as part of the rule 19b inquiry it was error for the court of appeals to address them on their merits when the required entities had been granted sovereign immunity and explaining that the courts consideration of the merits was itself an infringement on foreign sovereign immunity (D) holding rule 38 applies to frivolous criminal appeals as well as civil appeals (E) holding that the state law violated equal protection principles
Output (English): holding that once the court of appeals recognized that the claims of the absent parties were not frivolous as part of the rule 19b inquiry it was error for the court of appeals to address them on their merits when the required entities had been granted sovereign immunity and explaining that the courts consideration of the merits was itself an infringement on foreign sovereign immunity