## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 09

- 3847 G REG O RYJ. T URLE Y, P laint if f-A ppell ant, v. D ONA LD G AETZ, et a l., D efend a nts-A pp ellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Illino is. No . 3:0 9-cv-00 82 9-GPM

— G . Patri ckMu rp hy, Judge .
A RGUED M AY 26, 2010

— D ECIDED N OVE MBE R 2, 2010

Befo re R IPPLE, K ANN E a nd S YKES, C ircu it Judges . R I PPLE , Cir cu i tJudg e . G re go ry T u rle y, an Il lin ois pri sone r, filed a pro se l aw sui t under 42 U
. S. C. § 1 983, cl ai m i ng tha t the war d en , a num bero fguar ds and other em plo yee s a t M enar d C or re cti onalCenter( “M enar d”) re tal i ated a gainst hi m f orl i ti gat i on pre vi ousl y fi l ed re gar ding hi s co nd i ti ons ofco nfinem ent. M r. Turl ey m oved to pr o ce ed i n fo r m a pau per i s ( “I F P” ) , b utthe di st r i ct co ur t co nc l ude d th at he was i ne l i g ibl e due to the2 N o. 09

- 3847

T his op inio n h as b e e n c i rcu lated am on g all jud g es of this 1 co u rt in re g u la r a ct iv e se rv ic e p u rs u a n t to C ir cu i t R u le 40 (e). N o ju d g e fa v o re d to h ea r t h is c a se en b a n c. J udge Fl aum t ook no p art in th e c ons i der at i on or dec i s i on of thi s cas e. “thr ee- str i kes ” r ule o fthe Pri son Lit i gat i on Ref or m A ct o f 19 95 (“P L R A ”), see 28 U. S
. C. § 19 15 ( g )
. Re l y i ngon o ur o pi ni o ns i n G eorgev. Sm ith , 507 F .3 d 605, 607-08 (7th Cir. 2 0 0 7 ) , a nd Bori b oun ev. Be rge, 391 F.3d 852, 855 (7th C ir. 2004 ) , the dist ri ct c ourtr eas oned thatM r. Turl ey had “st ruck out” b ec au se i n eac h ofhi s three pri orl aw sui ts at l eas t o ne cl ai m had bee n dis m i sse d fo r f ai l ure to sta te a cl ai m al though ot h ercl ai m s had be en per m i tte d to go f or w ar d. The cour t a l so concl ud ed that M r. Turl ey w as no t in i m m inen t d a n g er of serious p hy sical harm an d, the r efo r e, di d no t m ee t th e o ne e xc ept i o n to the th r ee - st r i k es r ule. The co ur t th er efo r e di smi ss ed th e com pla i nt but w i thout prej ud i ce s o that M r. Turl ey co ul d r efi l e upo n pr epa y m en t o fthe ful lfi l i ng fee . M r. T u rle y a p p ea ls. Fo r th e r ea so n s s etfort h in this opi ni on, we re ver se the j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct cour t a nd r em and w i th i nstr ucti ons to re consi der M r . Tur l ey ’ s appl i ca ti o n t o pr o ce ed I F P. 1

I B AC KGR OUND I n hi s co m pla i nt, fi l ed i n October 2009 , M r. Turl ey con t e nd s tha tthe de fe nd a nt s h a v e wo r k e d t o g e the r toN o. 09

- 3847 3

A nother dis tr ic t c ourt j ud ge ofthe sam e d is tr ic t had dism is se d 2 M r . T u r l e y ’s o th e r c o m p l a i n t s o n A u g u st 1 4 , 2 0 0 8
. M r . T u r l e y ’s a p p e als of tho se d ism issals curr en tly a re p en d ing in this co u rt
. Tu rl ey v. Hu l i ck, N o . 0 8 -3 2 3 3 (7 th C ir . filed Se p t. 2 , 20 0 8 ); Tu rl ey v. Hu l i ck, N o . 08 -3 2 3 2 (7t h C ir . filed Se p t. 2 , 20 0 8 ). puni shhi m f o r fi l i ngg r i ev ances an d l aws ui ts abo utthe condi ti ons ofhi s co nfinem ent a t M enar d. H e a l l ege s th athe ha s endur ed a r an g e o fr et al i at o r y a ct i o ns i nclud ing p hy sical assau lts, threat s, trum ped-up di sc i pl ina ry c h ar ge s, co n fin em en t in se gr eg at ion w ith ou t a va lid re aso n, i nter fer ence w i th hi s a c c es s to the g ri evance sys tem and re m ova lo fhi s per sonal p ro perty
. M r. Turl ey al so fi l ed an appl i cati on t o proceed IFP. S ecti on 1 915( g) of T itle 28 p rohibits a prison er fr om proc eed ing I FP i f, o n th r e e o r mo r e o c c a s i o n s d u r i n g h i s i mpr i s o n me n t, he ha s “b r o ug hta n a cti on or appeali n a c o ur t o fthe U n ite d Sta te s t h at w a s d ism iss ed on th e g ro u n d s t h at it i s fri vol ous, m al i ci ous, o r f ai l s t o s ta te a cl ai m upon whi chr el i efmay be g r an te d. ” 28 U. S
. C. § 1 91 5( g )
. The sol e s tatutor y e xcepti on t o thi s three

- str i kes l i m i tat i on o n I F P s ta tu s i s i f“ the pr i so ne r i s unde r i m m i ne nt danger of ser i ous physi cali nj ury. ” Id. In hi s I FP appl i cati on, M r. Turl ey disc l ose d that a di ffer ent d i str i ct j ud ge al r ea dy ha d di smi ss ed two o th erc i vi la ct i o ns o n the basi s o f§ 1915 ( g) after concl ud i ng tha t he had i ncurr ed s t r i k e s f o r thr e e e a r l i e r la ws ui t s . Mr
. T ur l e y a r g ue d, 2 ho wev er, tha t th o se e ar l i ers uit s sh o ul d no t be c o ns i d e r e d “ s t r i k e s ” b e c a u s e e a c h a c t i o n i n c l u d e d s o me cl ai m s th atpr o ce ede d t o a de ci si o n on th e m er i ts , a l o ng w i th so m e cl ai m s that had be en di sm i sse d at sc re en i ng.4 N o. 09

- 3847 See 28 U
. S. C. § 1 915A. M r. T u rle y a l so conte nd ed that he was “under i m m i n en t d angero fse ri ous physi cal i nj ury. ” 2 8 U.S
. C. § 1 915( g)
. In part i c u lar , he al l ege d that one ofthe defe nd ant pr i son em plo yee s had thr eatened h i m. A rev iew of M r. T u rle y’s litiga tio n h ist or y re ve als th ree relevant c ivi l rights cas es fi led d uring his i nc arc er at ion . In th e firs t a c tio n, Tur l ey v . Cowan , N o. 01

- cv- 188- M J R ( S. D. I l l

. M ar . 13 , 20 07) , the dist ri ct c ourtdi sm i sse d one of M r . Tu r l e y ’ s c l a i ms a t s c r e e ning f o r f a i l ur e to sta te a cl ai m but p er m i tte d tw o othe r cl ai m s forr eta l i ati o n by pr i so n o ffi ci al s to pr o ce ed to a j ur y tr i al

. The p arties ultim ately settled the ca se fol low ing a j ury ve r d ict in M r. T u rle y’s fav or . Cowan , N o. 01-cv-188-M JR (Doc ket N os. 7, 39, 141, 151). Inth e s ec on d ac tio n, Turl ey v. Sm ith , N o. 02

- cv- 4592 ( N. D. I l l

. J ul y 2 7, 2 0 0 5 ) , M r . Tu r l e y c l a i med tha t pr i son ad m in istra tors an d m ed ical p erson ne l ha d been de liberat ely i nd if fe r en t to hi s m edi ca lne eds

. At s cr ee ni ng th e d i str i ct c ourtco ncl ud ed that M r. Turl ey had fa i l ed to st at e a cl a i m a ga in st so m e d efe n d an ts , sp ec ifica lly th os e w h o re lied on th e a u th or i t y o f m ed ica l st aff in d en yin g h is gr iev an c es . Sm ith , N o. 02

- cv- 4592 ( Docket N o. 6)
. The co urt l ate r gr anted s u m m ar y j ud gm ent for the m edi calst aff d efendants o n the gr ound that M r. Turl ey lac ked ev i dence ofdel iber ate i nd i ffer ence. Sm ith , N o. 02-cv-4592 ( D ocket N o. 97). M r. T u rle y’s th ird ac tio n, Tur l ey v . Cat ch i ngs , No. 03

- cv8491 ( N
. D. I l l

. Oct. 26 , 20 06) , i ncl ud ed m ult i ple al l ega ti ons aga i nst pr i son offi ci als, i ncl ud i ng a re tal i ati onN o. 09

- 3847 5

O rd ina rily, a d ism issa l w itho u t pr ejud ice is not a fina l, 3 a p p ea la b le o rd er . Se e Tay l o r - Hol me s v. O f f i ce o f Coo kCnty. Pub. G u ar di an , 503 F. 3d 607, 609- 10 ( 7th Cir. 2007)
. The den ia l o f a m otio n to p ro ceed IFP , ho w ev er, is an excep tion to this ru le a n d an ap p ea la b le o rd er . R obe rts v. Un i t ed Sta tes D i st
. C ourtf or N . D is t
. o

f C a l. , 33 9 U .S. 8 4 4 , 84 5 (19 5 0 ); Wal ker v. O ’ B ri en , 2 1 6 F .3d 6 2 6 , 63 4 -3 7(7t h C ir . 20 0 0 ); N ewli n v. Hel m an , 123 F. 3d 429, 436 ( 7th C ir
. 1997) ( “[ A ] pris oner m ay fil e an appeal to co nte st the d istrict cou rt’ s con c l u sion tha t he is inelig ib le t o pr oc e e d in for m a p a u p er is .”), ove rr ul ed i n par ton o th er grounds by Leev. C l i nto n , 20 9 F .3d 10 2 5 , 10 2 6 -2 7(7t h C ir . 20 0 0 ). cl ai m and a c l ai m thath e w as pla ced i n i nvest i gat i ve s e g r e g a t i o n wi th o u t d u e p r o c e s s . T h e d i s t r i c t c o u r tc o ncl ud ed that M r. Turl ey ’s c om pla i nt f ai l ed to st ate a c l a i m f o r a du e p r o c e s s v i o l a t i o n a nd a l s o di sm i sse d fro m the case a num b er o fdefendants wh om M r. Turl ey h ad su ed on ly in th eir su p er vis or y c ap ac ity
. Catc hi ngs , N o . 0 3- cv - 84 91 ( Docket No. 7 )
. The c o ur t al l o wed the re ta liat ion cla im to p ro c ee d ag a i n s t fou r d efe n d an ts , i d. , a n d l a t e r g r a n t e d th o s e d e fe n d a n t s ’ mo t i o n f o r s u mm ar y j ud gm ent a fterco ncl ud i ng tha t M r. Turley had f ai l ed to exhaust hi s a dm ini str ati ve re m edi es as re quir ed u n d er 42 U .S.C
. § 1 9 9 7e (a), Catc hi ngs , N o. 03

- cv- 8491 (Doc ket N o. 128). Bas ed o n thi s l i ti g at i o n h i story, th e di st r i ctc o ur t i n the curr ent l i ti gat i on den ied M r. Turl ey’ s m oti on f orl eave to pr o ce ed I F P a nd dism iss ed th e co m pl aintwi th o ut pr ej udi ce , thus pe r m i tt i ngre fi l i ngafte r pre pay m en t o fthe fullfi l i ng fee. Ci ti ng G eorg e v . Sm ith , 50 7 F
. 3d at 607- 08, 3 a nd Bori b oun ev. Be rge, 391 F.3d at 855 , the d istri ct cou rt6 N o. 09

- 3847 concl u d ed that M r. Turl ey had accum ula ted thr ee st r i k es b ecau se i n e ac h o fhi s pr i o r l aws ui ts a t l ea sto ne c l a i m h a d b e e n di s mi s s e d f o r f a i l u r e t o s t a t e a c l a i m. The di st r i ctc o ur t r ej ec te d M r . Tur l ey ’ s co nt r ary r ea di ng o f§ 1 91 5( g ) : tha t a di smi ss ali nc ur s a st r i k e only ifthe e nt i r eac t i on i s di sm i sse d as fri vo lou s, m al i ci ous o r f orf ai l ure to sta te a cl ai m . The cou rt o pined that M r. Turl ey’ s inter preta ti on o fthe st atute was f or ecl ose d by Georgeand com m en ted that “[w ]heth er G eorgei s a cor re ct int er p re tat i on o f§ 1915 ( g) i s no t a deci si on f or thi s co urt to m ake

. ” R.9 at 3. The di str i ct c ourtal so r ej e c t e d Mr
. T u r l e y ’ s c o n t e n t i o n th a th e w a s u n d e r i mm i nent dangero fse ri ous physi cali nj u ry . Th i s a pp eal follo w ed

.
II DI S C US S I ON A t i ssue i n thi s ca se i s the i nter preta ti on o f t h e three

st rik es r u le u n d er th e P L R A , see28 U
. S. C
. § 1915(g). Sp ec ifica lly, w e c on sid er w h et h er th e d ism i s sa l of ce rt ain c l a i ms i n an ac ti on o n gr ounds that they ar e fri vol ous, m al i ci ous o r f ai lto st ate a claim r esul ts i n a s tr i ke, f or pu rpos es of § 1915 ( g) , despit e the f act that other re l ate d cl ai m s in the sam e a cti on pro ceed t o adj ud i cati on o n the m er i ts. The di str i ct c ou rt co ncl ud ed these pr i o r sp l i tc a s e s d i d r e s u l ti n a s t r i k e . Mr
. T u r l e y c o ntends thatthe c ou rt ’ s a pp l i cati on o fthe thre e- str i kes l i m i ta ti o n o n a c l ai m -by

- cl ai m b as i s i s co nt r ary t o the pl ain l an g ua g e o fthe s ta tu te
. He fur th erc ha l l en g es the di st r i ctc o ur t’ s fi nd ing tha t he was no t i n i m m i ne ntN o. 09

- 3847 7 d a n g er . See 28 U .S.C . § 19 15 (g); Ciarpagl i niv. Sa i ni, 35 2 F
. 3 d 3 2 8 , 3 3 0

- 3 1 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 3 )
. We r e v i e w de novo a dist ri ct c ourt ’s ap pli cati on o fthe PLR A ’ s three

- str i kes lim ita tio n . Ciarpagl i ni, 35 2 F
. 3d at 330; Evans v. Il l
. D ep’ tof C o rr. , 150 F.3d 810 , 811 (7th C ir. 1998).

“ S t a t ut o r y c o ns t r uc t i o n mus tb e g i n wi th the l a ng uage empl o y ed by Con g r es s an d the a ss um pti o n tha t th e or dinar y m ean i ng o fthatl anguage acc urat el y e xpresse s the l egi sl ati ve pu rpos e. ” Park‘NFly, Inc . v. D ol l arPark & Fly, Inc. , 46 9 U.S
. 18 9, 19 4 ( 19 85 ); see also O rtega v. Ho lder, 59 2 F .3d 73 8, 74 3 (7 th C ir. 20 10 ); U ni t e d St at e s v. O lo f s on , 563 F. 3d 652, 658 (7th Cir
. 2009)
. T urni ng to that l anguage , § 19 15 ( g ) pr o hibi ts a p ri so ne r fr o m pr o ce edingI F P i fhe ha s a hi st o r y o ffr i vo l o us l i ti g at i o n: I n no e vent shal l a p ris onerbr i ng a ci vi lact i on o r appe ala j udg m en t i n a c i vi la ct i o n o r pr o ce edi ng u n der thi s s ecti on i fthe pri sone r has, o n 3 o r m or e pr i oro ccasi ons, wh i l e incarc er ate d ordetained i n any f aci l i ty, br ou gh t an ac t i on orapp e al i n a c ourtof the U ni ted S tat es that w as dism i sse d on the gr ounds that i t i s fri vol ous, m al icio us, o r f ai l s t o sta te a cl ai m upon w hi ch r elie f m ay be g r an te d, unles s th e pr i so ne ri s unde r i m m i ne nt danger ofse ri ous physi cali nj ury. 28 U. S
. C. § 1 9 1 5 ( g ) ( e mpha s i s a dde d)

. S e c t i o n 1 9 1 5( g) li terally sp eaks in term s of p rior ac t i ons thatwere dism i sse d as fri vol ous, m al i ciou s or f orf ai l ure to sta te a claim . The s tatute doe s no t e m plo y the te rm “cl ai m ” t o describe the ty pe ofdi sm i ssa lthatwil li ncur a str i ke. “Act i o n” a nd “ cl ai m ” ha ve wel l

- defi ne d m ea ni ng s inthe8 N o. 09

- 3847 p lea d in g c on te x t. See Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 3 ( provid i ng tha t a c i v i l“ a c t i o n” b e g i ns w i th the fi l i ngo fa c o mpl a i nt ) ; F e d. R. Ci v. P. 8( a) (s et ti ng o ut the m i ni m alr equi re m ents to st at e a “c l ai m ” f o r r el i ef ) ; F ed. R. Ci v. P. 1 8( a) ( pr o vi d i ng that a party m ay j oi n m ult i ple “cl ai m s” aga i nst a s in gle defe nd ant)
. H er e w e b el i eve thatthe obvi ous r eadi ng o f the s tatute i s t h at a s tr i ke i s incurr ed f oran a cti on di smi s s e d in i ts e ntiretyon one or m ore of th e three enu m erat ed gro u n d s. See 28 U
. S. C
. § 1915(g). Ours i st erc i r cui ts al r ea dy ha ve a do pte d thi s r ea di ng o f§ 1 91 5( g )
. In Thom pson v . D r ug Enfo r ce m e ntAdm i nis t r at i on , 492 F.3d 42 8, 43 2 ( D .C . C ir. 20 07 ), th e D .C . C irc u it hel d t ha t the pl a i n l a ngua g e o f § 1 9 1 5 ( g ) pr o v i de s tha t a p lain tiff in c u rs a st rik e o n ly w h en t h e e n t ire ac tio n is d ism issed based on one of th e li st e d bases

. Th e cou rt re aso ned that “i t would m ak e no se nse t o say

— w he re one cl ai m withi n an acti on i s di sm i sse d fo r f ai l i ng to st ate a cl ai m and a nother succee ds on th e m er i ts

— th atthe

‘ acti on’ had bee n dism i sse d for f ai l i ng to sta te a cl ai m . ” Id. Acco r di ng l y, the c o ur t i n Thom ps on he l d tha t “acti o ns co nt aini nga t l ea sto ne c l ai m f al l i ngwi th i n n one ofthe th re e s tr ike ca te go rie s” d o n otco u n t a s s tr ike s. Id. I n Poin t e rv. Wilki ns on , 502 F.3d 369 , 372-73 (6th C ir. 2007 ) , the Si xth Cir cui t hel d that a co m p laint dism i sse d in p art f o r f ai l ur e to e xha us t an d i n pa r t o n o ne o fthe grou n ds enum er ate d i n § 1 915( g) co unts as a str i ke. H oweve r, i tr e c o g ni z e d tha t“ i fs o me c l a i ms we r e di sm i ss ed w i th o utpr ej udi ce f o r f ai l ur e to e xha us t an d othe r cl ai m s ‘ w er e found to ha ve m er i t, ’ then the di sm i ss alo fo ther fri vo l o us c l ai m s woul d no t r en dertheN o. 09

- 3847 9 dism i ssa la str i ke. ” P o inter, 50 2 F
. 3d at37 2, 37 6- 77( quo ting C le m ons v. Young, 2 4 0 F
. S u p p . 2 d 6 3 9 , 6 4 1 ( E
. D. M i ch

. 2003 ) )
. S i m i l ar l y, bo th the Fi fth and Eighth Cir cui ts have r ec o g ni ze d tha t o ve r tu r ni nga di smi ss ali n pa r t an d re in st at in g s om e b u t n otall of a p lain tiff’s cla im s e lim inates any s tr i ke or i gi nal l y thought t o apply to the c ase . SeeM ayfie ld v. Texas D ep’ t of Crim inal Just ice, 52 9 F
. 3d 59 9, 61 7 (5 th C ir. 20 08 ); P ow el ls v . M innehaha C nty. Sher if f D ep’t, 19 8 F
. 3d 711, 71 3 ( 8th Ci r. 19 99) ( ci ti ng M oorev. D oan , N o. 98 -c v-2 30 7, 19 98 W L 88 70 89 , at *5 (N .D . I ll. D ec . 10, 19 98 )). In an ot h er co n t e x t, th e N in th C irc u it concl ud ed that a ca se i s “dism i sse d” und er§ 1915 ( g) wh en the di strict c ourt“di spose s o fan in f or m a pauperi s c o mpl ai nt ” o n one ofthe thre e s tatutor y g ro und s. O ’N e al v. P ri ce, 5 31 F.3d 1146 , 1153 (9th Cir. 2008) (em p ha sis add ed ). C o unt i nga s a st r i k e o nl y the di smi ss alo fa n e nt ire acti on i s co nsi ste nt with the S up re m e Cour t’ s inter preta
ti o n o f4 2 U. S
. C. § 1 99 7e ( a) , a di ffer en t pr o vi si o n ofthe PLRA whi chpr o vi des th at“ [ n] o a ct i o n” c ha l l en g i ng p ris on co nd i ti ons shal lbe bro ught byan inm ate unt il ad m i ni st r at i ve r emedi es ha ve b ee n e xha us te d. In Jo n e s v. B ock, 5 49 U. S
. 199 (2 00 7) , the Co ur t r ec o g ni ze d tha t th e PLRA was i nt en ded “t o fi l te r ou t t he b ad cl ai m s an d f aci l i tat e co nsi derat i on o fthe goo d.” Jo nes , 54 9 U.S
. at20 3- 04. The l anguage o f§ 1997 e( a) , th e C ourthel d, author i zes a di str i ct c ourtto di sm i ss a pri sone r’ s l aw sui t in i ts enti re ty onl y i fthe com pla i nt i s devo i d ofunexhausted c laim s. Id. at 2 20

- 21
. I fa c o m pl aintpr es en ts b o the xha us t e d a nd u ne xh a usted c l a i ms, the Co ur tc o nc l ud e d, on ly th e u n ex h au st ed cla im s m ay be d ism iss ed

. Id. at 221. A s th e C ourtexpl ai ned, “s tatutor y r efer ences to an10 N o. 09

- 3847 ‘action’ hav e not typ icall y been rea d t o m ean that every cl ai m i n c l u d e d i n th e a c t i o n mu s tme e tth e p e r t i ne nt re quir em ent b ef or e the ‘ acti on’ m ay proce ed. ” Id. I n Jo nes , the Su p rem e C ou rt also en d orsed our in terpr e t a t i o n o fy e ta no the r p r o v i s i o n o fthe PLRA , 42 U. S
. C. § 1 99 7e (e) , w h ich p ro vid es th at “[n ]o Fe d er al c ivil ac t i on m ay be b ro ught bya pri soner . . . f orm entalo r em oti onali nj ury suffer ed w hi l e in custo dy w i thout a pri or showing of physi cali nj ury. ” See Jo nes , 549 U
. S. at22 1 ( ci ti ng Robi ns on v. Page, 1 70 F.3d 74 7, 748-49 (7th Cir. 19 99 ) )
. In Robi ns on , we w er e f aced with the quest i on whethe r a mix ed “a ct i o n, ” m ea ni nga c o m pl aintc o ntaini ng a cl ai m bar red u n d er§ 1997 e( e) al ong w i th o ther perm i ssibl e claim s, m ust be di sm i sse d i n i ts enti re ty orwh ethero nl y the unauthor i zed cl ai m sho uld be di sm iss ed

. Robi ns on , 17 0 F
. 3d at 748- 49. W e co ncl ud ed that “the na tu ra lr eadi ng o fthe sta tute” r equi re d dism is s a l of on ly th e u n au th or ize d cla im
. Id. a t74 8
. We ex p lain ed th at to d ism iss an en tir e s u it b ec au se ith a d o n e b ad cla im w ou ld be n oton ly gr atui tous, but al so contr ar y t o the fund am ental proce du ra lnor m thatwh en a com p l ai nt has b o t h g o o d a n d b a d c l a i m s , i n th e s e n s e o fc l a i ms that can and cl ai m s that c annot sur vi ve a m oti on to d ism iss u n d er Fe d . R. C iv. P . 12(b )(6) , on ly th e bad cl ai m s a re di sm i sse d; the c om pla i nt as a w hol e i s no t. Id. at 74 8-4 9; s e eal s o F r e e m an v. Wat ki ns , 479 F.3d 12 57, 1259

- 60 ( 10th Cir
. 20 07) ( i nterpret i ng r equi re m ents f ordi sm i ssa lo fcl ai m s forl ack ofexhausti on underN o. 09

- 3847 11 § 1 99 7e (c )(1) ); Lira v. Herrera , 42 7 F
. 3d 1164, 11 72- 73 (9th C ir. 2005) (sam e). Gi ve n the pl ain l an g ua g e o f§ 19 15( g ) a nd the Suprem e Cour t’ s underst anding ofhow “ ac tio n” i s use d el sewhere i n the PLR A , thi s ca se w oul d be s tr ai ghtf o r ward if n ot f o r o uro pi ni o ns i n Geor gea nd B o ribo un e. The dis tr i ct c ourtr ead thes e deci si ons to h old that a dism i ssa l of eve n one cl ai m on a gr ou n d enum er ate d i n § 1 915( g)

— eve n w hen other cl ai m s s urvi ve

— i s e nough to qua l i fy the e nt i r e l aws ui t as a s tr i k e. M r . Turl eyc o nte nds tha t th e di st r i ctc o ur t’ s r eading i s to o b r o ad an d th at th es e o p in io n s s t a n d on ly for th e lim ite d p ro p os iti on that pr i sone rs cannotabuse the r u les ofj oi nd er to i nsul ate thei r com pla i n ts from the thre e- str i kes l i m i tati on. To the exte nt th at Georgea nd Bori b oun ehol d that the di sm i ssa lo fa si ngl e cl ai m am ong severa li s e nough to i n c u r a s t r i k e , Mr
. T u r l e y a s k s th a tth e two d e c i s i o ns be overru led as con trary to the p lai n lang ua ge of § 1915 (g). W e a gr ee w i th M r. Turl ey that Georgea nd Bori b oun edo n otco n tr ol h er e a n d d o n otco m p el a cla im -b y-c laim an aly si s o fi nm at e co m pl aint s f o r pur po se s o fa ppl y i ng § 1 91 5(g ). Georgea nd Bori b oun es pec i fi ca l l y a ddr es s th e appli cat ion o fthe PLR A to l aw sui ts i n w hi ch se ver al in m at es h av e join ed th eir i n d i v i d u al c laim s in a sin gle c om p l a i n t or in w h ich on e in m at e h as j oin ed m u ltip le cl ai m s ag ains t se ve r alde fen dan ts
. Nei th erde ci si o n, how eve r, speak s di re ctl y t o the quest i on p re se nted by th i s ca se . In Bori b oun e, f o urp r i s o ne r s j o i nt l y f i l ed a sing l e l aws ui t an d s o ug htI F P s ta tu s. 3 91 F
. 3d at8 53
. The dist ri ct c ourthad announced that i t would notal l ow12 N o. 09

- 3847 i n ma t e s j o i n t l y t o p r o c e e d I F P a n d d i s mi s s e d th e c o mp lain t. Id. W e re ver sed. W e hel d that the PLR A d id n ot su p ersed e Fed eral Ru le ofCivil Proc ed ure 20(a)( 1), whi cha l l o ws mul ti pl e pl aint i ff s to jo i n c l ai m s ar i sing o ut o f the s a me s e r i e s o f o c c ur r e nc e s a nd s ha r i ng a questio n of l a w or fa c t c om m on to all p lain tiffs

. Id. at85 4. N o ting, ho wev er, the “ su bs ta nt i al ” r i sktha t “[j ] o i nt l i ti g at i o n c o uld unde r m i ne the s y st em o ffi na nc i ali nce nt i ve s cr ea te d b y the PLRA, ” we a l so he l d tha t th e PL R A did m od ify the norm al rule th at th e fi lin g of a l aw su it i ncurs j ust o ne fi l i ng fee no m att erthe num ber of p l ain tiffs

. Id. at85 4- 56. Thus, pri sone rs se eking to pr o ce ed I F P o n a j o i nt l y fi l ed co m pl aint mustpa y o ne fee ap iec e. Id. a t8 5 6
. In a n a l y z i n gth o s e qu e s t i o n s we emphas i ze d tha t pr i so ne r s sh o ul d b e a w ar e o fthe shar ed r i sks o fj oi nt l i ti gat i on a nd expl ai ned that a pri sone r l i ti gat i ng j oi ntl y under R u le 2 0 t ake s the r i sk that one orm or e o fthe cl ai m s in the com pla i nt m ay be deem ed sanct ion ab l e o r count a s a st ri ke “w hethero r not th ey c on cer n hi m per sonal l y. ” Id. at85 5. W e o pined o n the r i s k tha t a s t r i k e may b e i nc ur r e d i n the c o ntext o f j o i ntl i ti g at i o n: [ Se cti on] 1915 ( g) l i m i ts to thre e the num bero fI FP co m pl aint s o r appe al s th atwer e “di smi ss ed o n the gr ounds that i t i s friv ol ous, m al i ci ous, o r f ai l s t o sta te a cl ai m u pon w hi ch rel i efm ay be g ra nted[. ”] This l anguage re fer s t o the c om pla i nt o r appeal as a whol e; th us when any claim i n a c om pla i nt o r appeal i s “ fri volo us, m al i ci ous, o r f ai l s t o sta te a c laim u p on w h ich relie f m ay be gra n t e d [,”] all pla i nti ff s incur s tr i kes

.N o. 09

- 3847 13 Id. ( emphas i s adde d)

. Thi s l an gu age, ho wev er, i s di ctum and w as not centr alto o ur ho l ding that the rule s o f j oi nd erapplyequal l y t o pri sone r sui ts. N ea r l y thr ee y ea r s l at er, how ev er, i n George, we chara ct e r i z e d Bori b oun e ’ s di sc us si o n o f§ 1 91 5( g ) a s ca r ryin g gr ea te r w eig h t. Georgeadd resse d the r eve rs e s i tuati on o ftha t i n Bori b oun e : a c om p lai nt bya si ngl e inm ate j oi ni ng 50 di spa ra te cla i m s a gainst 2 4 defendants. 50 7 F. 3d at 607. Thi s j oi nd er, we explain ed , not o nl y v i ol ate d the li m i tat i on o n j oi nd ero funrel ate d cl ai m s under Feder alRule s o fCi vil Pr oce du re 18 and 20, but al so al l o wed the pl aintif f to do dge pa y i ngmul ti pl e fi l i ng fees and ri skin g m ult i ple st ri kes f orwh at shoul d have b ee n se ve ra l d iffe r e n t la w su its
. Id. The pl aint i ffi n George had fi l ed a “ buckshotco m pla i nt” i n the ho pe that“i fev en 1 o f h is 5 0 c laim s w er e d e e m ed n on -friv olo u s, h e w ou ld re cei ve no ‘ str i kes ’ atal l, as o pp ose d to th e 49 that w oul d res ultfro m m aking 49 frivo l ous c l ai m s in a b atch of50 sui ts. ” Id. “ The dis tr i ct j ud ge had l i kewis e assu m ed that a sin gle non-fri volous claim i n a blu nd erb u ss co m p lain t m ak es th e s u it a s a w h ole n on -fr ivo lou s.” Id. W e e x p lain ed th at a p ris on er ’s c om p lain t t h at fails to sat i sfy Rul e 20 s houl d be r ej ecte d j ust a s a fre e perso n’s co m pla i nt would, and, here, the pla i nti ffhad ma d e n o e ff o r tt o s h o w h o w h i s j o i n d e r o fc l a i ms sa tis fied R u le 2 0. Id. W e di d not insi st, however, that eve rysuch co m pla i nt m ustbe dism i sse d. I nstea d, f or cl ai m s th at vio l ate Rule 20 but ar e per m i tte d to go forw ard , w e offered this com m en t abou t § 1915(g): W he n a p r i s o n e r d o e s fi l e a mu l t i

- c l a i m, m u lti-d efe n d an t s u it, th e d i st ric t c ou rtsh ou ld14 N o. 09

- 3847 evalu at e e a c h claim f or the p urp ose of § 1915 (g). Bori b oun e o bs er ve d : “w hen a n yc l a i m i n a c o mp lain t or ap p ea l is ‘frivo lou s, m alic iou s, or fa i ls to sta te a cl aim u p on w hi ch r el i efm ay be gr anted[ , ’ ] al lpl ai nti ff s incur s tr i kes ” ( 391 F.3 d at 85 5; em p h as is a d d ed ). Id. at 6 0 7 -0 8. I t fol low ed , w e con tinu ed , that the p lai nt iff i n Georgehad i ncurr ed “two st ri kes i n thi s l i ti gat i on

— o n e f o r fi l i n ga c o mp l a i n tc o n t a i n i n ga fr i v o l o u s c l a i m, anothe r f oran a pp eal ra ising at l eas t o ne fri vol ous obj ecti on t o the di str i ct c ourt ’ s r uling. ” Id. a t 6 08. W e co nc lu d ed by h old in g t h a t t h e d ist ric t c ou rth ad co rre c tly gr anted sum m ar y j u dgm ent forthe defe nd ants on th e p lain tiff’s Firs t a n d E igh th A m e n d m en t c laim s. Id. at 608- 09. A s t h e d i st ric t c ou rtrea d th es e t w o op in ion s, George inp ar tic u lar , th e in c lu sio n of a friv olo u s c laim w ith in ana ct i o n inc ur s a st r i ke, even i fthe r emai nde r o fthe action is not fri volous. W e believe th e d istri ct cour t ov eres ti m at ed th e si g ni fi ca nc e o fthe l an g uage i n George a nd Bori b oun e . W e do not a sc ribe t o the e ar l i er panel s a n i ntent to substi tute “cl ai m ” w h er e Congr ess ha s wr i t te n “ a c t i o n” i nt o § 1 9 1 5 ( g )
. T ho s e o pi ni o ns do not pu rpor t t o i nter pret § 1 915( g) as p ar t of i ts narr ow ho l di ng . In Bori b oun e, we hel d that pr i sone rs m ay j oin thei r cl ai m s in a s i ngl e a cti on but m ust e ach pay a se par at e fi l i ngfee . In George, we hel d th at the di str i ct cour t co rr ectly g ra nted sum m ar y j ud gm en t fo r the defen dan ts
. Ea chde ci si o n di sc us se s § 19 15 ( g ) and the PLRA o nl y wi th i n the c o nt ex t o fthe r ul es o fjo i nde r a nd e x-N o. 09

- 3847 15

S e e Mi t c h e l l v . F e d
. Bu r e a u o f Pr i s o ns , 5 8 7F
. 3 d 4 1 5 , 4 1 8 ( D. C. 4 Ci r. 2009) ( c i t i ng Tho mps o n v . Dr ug Enf o r ce me ntAdmi n. , 492 F .3d 42 8 , 4 3 2 (D .C . C ir . 20 0 7 )); M a y f i e l d v . Tex a s Dep ’ to

f Cr i mi nalJust i ce, 52 9 F .3d 59 9 , 61 7(5t h C ir . 20 0 8 ); Poi nte r v. Wi l ki nson , 5 0 2 F .3 d 36 9 , 37 2 , 37 6 -7 7(6t h C ir . 20 0 7 ); Pow el l s v. M i nnehaha C n ty . S h er iff D ep ’t, 19 8 F .3d 71 1 , 71 3 (8t h C ir . 19 9 9 ). p l a i n s h o w d i s t r i c tc o u r t s s h o u l d h a n d l e p r i s o n e r s ’ c o mpla i nt s tha tc o ul d o r s ho ul d h a v e b e e n fi l e d a s s e par ate ac tio n s. Se eGe orge, 507F.3d at60 7; Bori b oun e, 39 1 F
. 3d at 855. The r efer ences to § 1 915(g), ther ef or e, ar e no t ess enti alto the outco m e in ei thercas e. The di st r i ctc o ur t’ s ex te ns i o n o fthe l an g ua g e i n George to m ea n th at in a ll ca se s a p ris o n e r in c u rs a st rik e if j us t o ne c l ai m o uto fs ev er ali s di smi sse d o n o ne o fthe e nu mer a t e d g r o un ds r un s c o un t e r t o the p l a i n l a ng uage ofthe sta tute, wh i ch ass i gns a st ri ke f orthe dism i ssa lo f an “a cti on” and not a “cl ai m . ” W e pr evi ousl y hav e descr ibed § 1915 ( g) as r est ri cti ng an i nm ate ’ s e l i gibility fo r I FP status “[ a] fterl osing thr ee ca ses f or one of the en um erate d gro und s, ” Abdu l

- Wadoodv. Nat han , 91 F .3d 10 23, 1024 ( 7th Ci r. 19 96) ( em phasi s ad d ed ), and adopti ng a con tr ary r eadi ng her e would l eave us in a m i nor i ty of one on the i ssue. Our si ste r ci rcui ts that have add re sse d thi s i ssue al las cribe t o th e lan guage o f§ 1915 ( g) i ts l i ter aland or dinar y m eani ng: S tr i kes ar e incurr ed w hen a n a c t i o n i s d i s m i s s e d , n o tw h e n o n e o fs e v e r a lc l a i ms i s di sm i sse d. A s we have note d, the F i fth , Six th, Ei ghth an d D
. C
. C i r c u i t s a l li n t e r p r e t§ 1 9 1 5 ( g ) t o c o unt s t r i k e s a tthe c a s e l e v e lr a the r thanc l a i m- b y - c l a i m. By 4 contr ast, we have found li ttle support f ora cl ai m -by-16 N o. 09

- 3847

S ee Pointer, 502 F.3d a t 3 72, 376- 77 ( is sued befor e G eo rge ); 5 Th o mp so n , 4 9 2 F .3d at 43 2 (sa m e); P o w ells , 198 F. 3d at 713 ( is sued befor e Bor i bo une ). cl ai m appli cati on o f§ 1915( g)
. The Thi rd Ci rcui t has ad op ted the reaso nin g of Bori b oun eto per m i t j oi nd er o f m ultiple I FP plaintiff s and , in d ict a, agreed that “a cou rt cou ld h old th at, r ead ing the PL R A and Ru le 20 togethe r, a pl aint i ffi s ac co unt ab l e f o r the di smi ss alo fa c o- pl aintiff’s cla im s” w h en a c ou r t a s s es se s s tr ike s. Hagan v. R o gers , 570 F.3d 146 , 156 (3d Cir. 2009) . Th e Th ird Circu it did notaddress , however, wh ether“di sm i ssa lo f a co-plaintiff’ s claim s” m ean s allof th e co-plaintiff’s c laim s o r j u st on e. C

f. Bori b oun ev. Be rge, No
. 0 4

- c v - 0 0 1 5

- C, 20 05 W L 1 3203 45 , a t * 4- 6 ( W
. D. W i s. J une 1 , 2 00 5) ( co nclud ing on rem an d th a t an ind ivi d ua l p lai nt iff incu rs a strike on ly w he n “th e total accu m ulation of a parti cul arl i ti gant’ s cl ai m s withi n the group com pla i nt” is dism issed f or a reason li sted i n § 191 5(g))
. S i g ni fi ca nt l y, thi s ci rcu i t ha s no t r el i ed upo n George f orthe p ro p osi ti on that § 19 15( g) co unts a parti al dism i ssa la s a str i ke. N otabl y, we do not bel i eve that the Georgea nd Bori b oun epanel s int en ded thei r re m ar ks ab o ut§ 1 91 5( g ) t o s er ve a s pr o no unc ement s o n the ge n er al a p p lic a t i o n of th e t h re e-s tr ike s ru le t o a ll pri sone r case s be cause nei thero pini on w as ci rcul ate d unde r Ci r cui t Rul e 40 ( e) de spi te the c o nt r ary pr ec ede nt then exi sting i n our si ste r ci rcui ts. W e presum e, ther e- 5 f o r e, th at th e cr ea ti o n o f a ci r cui t spl i t was no t i nte nde d. Nev er th el es s, the di st r i ctc o ur t’ s r ea di ngo ftheN o. 09

- 3847 17

See, e . g. , Thom as v. Fei ner m an , N o . 0 9

- 6 5 1

- G P M, 20 1 0 WL 6 1 2 4 1 5 2 6 , at*3 (S.D . Ill. M a r. 2 3 , 20 1 0 ); Wi l li am s v . Wes t er m an , N o. 08- cv- 00858- M J R , 2009 W L 2486603, at *1- 2 (S. D
. Ill

. A ug. 13, 2 0 0 9 ); P et ers on v. Th atcher, N o. 09- cv- 325 R M , 2009 W L 2341978, a t *1 (N .D . In d . Jul y 27 , 20 0 9 ). di ct a i n Georgewas und erst andabl e, and, r egr ett abl y, that dict a h as cause d confusi on a m ong the di str i ct co ur ts , l ea di ng se ve r alt o c o nc l ude tha t pr i so ne r s i nc ur a st r i k e f o r the pa r ti aldi smi ss al o fa c o m pl aint
. Our 6 ho l di ngt o da y c l a r i fi e s tha ta s t r i k e i s i nc ur r e d u nd er § 1 9 1 5 ( g ) whe n a n i nma t e ’ s c a s e i s di s mi s s e d in i ts ent iretybased on th e groun d s li sted i n § 191 5(g). W i thi n the conte xt of thi s case w e concl ud e t h at M r. Turl ey has not i ncurr ed thre e str i kes und er§ 19 15 (g) and rem ain s e l i gibl e forI FP st atus. H i s fi rs t tw o case s, Tur l ey v . Cowan a n d T u rl ey v. Sm ith , ar e cl ear l y no t s t r i k e s . In e a c h, th e di s t r i c tc o u r td i s mi s s e d s o me c l a i ms f o r f a i l u r e to st a t e a c l a i m, b u tth e r e ma i n i n gc l a i ms w er e r eso l ved on the m er i ts . A s forthe thi rd cas e, Tur l ey v . Cat ch i ngs , the d istrict cou rt dism issed i t in part f or f ai l ure to sta te a cl ai m and in part f or failu re to exhaust a dm i ni str ati ve re m edi es. A l though we have a c k n o w l e d g e d th a ta d i s t r i c tc o u r tm a y d i s m i s s a c o mpla i nt i f the exi ste nce of a val i d a ffi rm ati ve d efe n se, such as the f ai l ure to exhaust, i s s o pla i n fro m the f ace ofthe com pla i nt thatthe suit c an be re gar ded as friv ol o u s, th at is n otw h at h ap p en ed h er e. Se eWal ke rv. Thom ps on , 288 F.3d 100 5, 1009 -10 (7th C ir . 2 002). R ath er, f ol l owing the ini ti aldi sm i ssa lo fso m e cl ai m s under18 N o. 09

- 3847 Feder alRule o fCi vi lProce du re 12 ( b) ( 6) , the dist ri ct c ourtdi sm i sse d the r em ai ni ng unexhausted cl ai m s a t sum m ar y j ud gm ent. W e a cknowled ge thatthe Si xth Cir cui t has i n one opi ni on held th at a s tr i ke w as i ncurr ed w h er e the pri sone r’ s co m pla i nt was dis m i sse d i n partf orf ai l ure to sta te a cl ai m and i n p ar t fo r f ai l ur e to ex ha us t, r ea so ni ngo nl y tha t “inc l us i o n o fune xha us t e d c l a i ms i n a c o mpl a i nti n whi c h a l lo the r c o unts f ai lt o s ta te a c l ai m wi l lnot ‘i njectmer i t i nt o the a ct i o n’ and tra nsf or m c ou n ts thatdo notst ate a cl ai m i nto ones thatdo. ” P o inter, 5 02 F.3d at37 3, 37 6. B u t in P o inter, the Si xth C irc u i t a l so ackno w l edged

— a n d we agr ee

— th at a d ism iss al for failu re to p lea d ad eq u at ely exhausti on i s di stin ct fro m a dism i ssa lf orf ai l ure to sta te a c laim , an d n eit h er th e d ism iss al of a co m p lain t in i ts enti re ty for fa il ure to exhaust no r the di sm i ssa lo f unex ha us t e d c l a i ms fr o m a n a c t i o n c o nt a i ningo ther vi abl e cl ai m s co nsti tutes a str i ke und er§ 1915 (g). Id. at 372, 374- 75. A pri sone r’ s f ai l ure to exhaust a dm i ni str ati ve re m edi es i s s tatutor i l y di stinct fro m hi s f ailu re to st at e a cla im u p on w h i c h relie f m ay be gra n te d

. See28 U .S.C
. § 1 91 5A ; 42 U .S.C . § 19 97 e(a ); Jo nes , 549 U.S
. at21 1- 12 ; Wa lk er, 28 8 F
. 3d at 1009 . T h e d i sm i ssa lo fan a cti on for fa il ure to exhaust there f or e doe s no t incur a str i ke. Thom ps on , 4 9 2 F .3d at43 8; O wen s v. Is aac, 48 7 F
. 3d 561, 56 3 (8 th C ir. 20 07 ); Gre e n v. Young, 45 4 F
. 3d 405, 40 9 (4t h C ir. 20 06 ); Sn ider v . M elind ez , 1 9 9 F
. 3 d 1 0 8 , 11 1- 12 ( 2d Cir . 1 999). Thus, co nsi ste nt with the pl ai n l anguage ofthe PLR A , we concl ud e that the di sm i ssa lo fan acti on, i n partf orf ai l ure to exhaust a nd i n partas fri vol ou s, m al i ci ous o r f orf ai l ure to sta te a cl ai m does notN o. 09

- 3847 19

The p rocedur a l po sture ofthi s cas e i s unu sual given 7 M r. Tur l ey’ s repre s en t at i on by r et ai ne d co uns elan d paym en t of th e appe l l at e fee s . I n the di s t ri c tc our t, M r. Tur l ey ’ s I FP m otio n in clu d ed an affid av it of ind ige nc e. Th e d istrict cou rt, howeve r, di d notm ak e an e xpr es s fi ndi ng o fi ndi ge nc e and c onc l uded on l y thatM r. Tur l ey was bar re d f ro m I FP s t atus based up on his prior li ti ga tio n . I n thi s court M r. Turley i ni t i al l y fi l e d a p r o s e mot i o n f o r I F P s t a t u s a n d a n a ffi da v i tof i n d i g e n ce , Tu rley v. G ae tz , No. 0 9

- 3 8 4 7 ( Doc ke t No. 4 , De c . 21, 20 09 ), b u t tw o w eek s later he p aid the $ 45 5 ap p ellate fees. N earl y two w eeks afterthat, M r. Turley’ s att o rn ey s fil ed thei r dis clo su re stat em ent. Iti s not know n from the rec ord whethe r M r. Tur l ey ’ s at t or ne y s ar e re pre s en t i ng h i m pr o bon o o r i fth e l a w fi r m pa i d h i s a p p e l l a t e fe e s . Onr e man d, h o wever, the dist ri ctcourt m ust st il l m ake a fi nd ing as to indigence, a n d Mr
. T u r l e y ’ s a b i l i t y t o p a y h i s a p p e l l a t e fe e s ma y b e c o me par tofthatdet er m i nat i on. co ns ti tu te a s tr i k e unde r § 1 91 5( g )
. Acco r di ng l y, the di smi ss al o f M r . Tur l ey ’ s th i r d ca se al so do es not co nsti tute a s tr i ke. Fi nal l y, bec ause w e co ncl ud e that M r. Turl ey h as not accum ula ted thre e str i kes and r em ai ns el i gibl e f orIF P st atus , we ne ed not de te r m i ne whethe r hi s al l eg at i o ns

7 m et the i m m i nent- danger exception to the thre est rik es ru le. See 28 U
. S. C
. § 1915(g).
Conclusi on Forthe f or ego i ng r eas ons, the j ud gm en t ofthe dist ri ct cour t i s r ev er se d , and the case i s r em anded with instr uc-20 N o. 09

- 3847 ti o ns t o r ec o ns i derwhethe r M r . Tur l eymay pr o ce ed I F P. O n r emand th e di st r i ctc o ur t wi l lne ed to de te r m i ne w hetherM r. Turl ey i s unabl e t o pay the fi l i ng fees as req uired un d er § 1915(a)(1)
. R EVER S ED a nd R EMAND ED

11- 2- 10