Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-16-01774/USCOURTS-ca8-16-01774-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tyrone Ellis
Appellant
Aric Simmons
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 16-1774

___________________________

Tyrone Ellis

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Aric Simmons, Advance Practice Nurse, Correct Care Solutions

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Pine Bluff

____________

 Submitted: May 27, 2016

Filed: June 14, 2016

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, MELLOY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Arkansas inmate Tyrone Ellis appeals a district court order revoking the grant

of leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action based on

a determination that he had three “strikes” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

Our review of the docket sheets and orders in the cases identified as strikes reveals

that two of the dismissals qualified as strikes. See Owens v. Isaac, 487 F.3d 561, 563 

Appellate Case: 16-1774 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/14/2016 Entry ID: 4411640 
(8th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (de novo review). Specifically, the preservice dismissals

in Ellis v. Hobbs, et al., No. 2:14-cv-00065 (E. Dist. Ark. Aug. 28, 2014), and in Ellis

v. McDaniel, No. 5:15-cv-00236 (E. Dist. Ark. July 27, 2015), were for failure to state

a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (in no event shall inmate bring civil action or appeal

judgment in civil action if he has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or

detained, brought action or appeal in federal court that was dismissed on grounds that

it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state claim upon which relief may be granted). 

However, we find that the other two prior dismissals identified below--Ellis v.

Chandler, et al., No. 1:10-cv-01080 (W. Dist. Ark. 2011), and Ellis v. Chandler, et al.,

No. 1:11-cv-01006 (W. Dist. Ark. May 25, 2011)--did not qualify as strikes. While

some claims in each case were dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim,

the claims against certain defendants were dismissed based on immunity, which is not

a basis cited in section 1915(g); and the orders did not reflect that the claims against

those who were immune from suit were alternatively dismissed because they were

frivolous or failed to state a claim. See Castillo-Alvarez v. Krukow, 768 F.3d 1219,

1219-20 (8th Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (dismissals based on immunity are not among

types of dismissals listed as strikes under section 1915(g); dismissal was not strike

where court determined that only named defendant was entitled to prosecutorial

immunity, and did not state action was frivolous, malicious, or failed to state claim). 

Further, in applying section 1915(g), courts have focused on the dismissal of the entire

complaint or case, not on the dismissal of claims. See Tolbert v. Stevenson, 635 F.3d

646, 649-55 (4th Cir. 2011) (collecting cases for proposition that “action” in § 1915(g)

unambiguously means entire case or suit and thus that inmate’s entire action or appeal

must be dismissed on one or more of enumerated grounds to qualify as strike); see

also Orr v. Clements, 688 F.3d 463, 466 (8th Cir. 2012) (citing Tolbert for proposition

that “action” under § 1915(g) means “entire ‘case’ or ‘suit’”). Accordingly, because

Ellis had only two strikes when he filed the instant suit and appeal, we grant him leave

-2-

Appellate Case: 16-1774 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/14/2016 Entry ID: 4411640 
to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, we vacate the section 1915(g) dismissal, and

we remand for further proceedings. 

______________________________

-3-

Appellate Case: 16-1774 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/14/2016 Entry ID: 4411640