Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01837/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01837-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1837

___________

Jon Mills, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

David White, Warden, Maximum *

Security Unit, ADC; Tommy James, * [UNPUBLISHED]

Assistant Warden, Maximum Security * 

Unit, ADC; Richardson, Sgt., *

Maximum Security Unit, ADC; *

Correctional Medical Services, Inc. *

Health Care for Prisoners; Larry D. *

Bowler, Infirmary Doctor, Maximum *

Security Unit, ADC; Mustitul, CO II, *

Maximum Security Unit, ADC; Roland *

Anderson, Medical Professional, CMS, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: May 17, 2006

Filed: May 30, 2006

___________

Before ARNOLD, MELLOY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Arkansas inmate Jon Mills appeals following the district court’s denial of his

motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) as three-strikes barred, and the resulting

Appellate Case: 06-1837 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/30/2006 Entry ID: 2049899
1

This dismissal did not constitute a strike even when Mills filed the instant

appeal, as the envelope in which his notice of appeal was sent is postmarked February

6, 2006.

-2-

dismissal without prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g), an inmate may not proceed IFP in a civil action or an appeal if he has on

three or more previous occasions brought an action or appeal in federal court that was

dismissed for frivolousness, maliciousness, or failure to state a claim, unless the

inmate is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. Having conducted an

independent review of the section 1983 cases that the district court counted as

“strikes” under section 1915(g), we conclude that Mills had no strikes when he filed

the instant lawsuit. See Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2005)

(reviewing de novo interpretation and application of § 1915(g)).

In two of the cases assessed as strikes, evidentiary hearings were held before

the matters were finally dismissed, and in one of those cases, some defendants were

granted summary judgment. The final dismissals in these cases do not constitute

strikes. See Jennings v. Natrona County Detention Center Med. Facility, 175 F.3d

775, 778-81 (10th Cir. 1999) (discussing what constitutes strike under § 1915(g)).

The third case counted as a strike was dismissed for failure to state a claim in April

2005, but the dismissal was not affirmed by this court until February 7, 2006, and the

instant lawsuit was filed some months earlier, in November 2005.1

 See id. at 780

(counting dismissals as strikes only when appeals have been exhausted or waived). 

Accordingly, Mills had no strikes when he filed the instant lawsuit. We now

grant Mills IFP status in this appeal, and we reverse and remand for further

proceedings consistent with this opinion.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1837 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/30/2006 Entry ID: 2049899