T hi s orderand j udgm enti s notbinding prece dentexceptunderthe doctrines of * law o f th e c a s e , res ju dica ta and col l aterales toppel . T he courtgeneral lydi s favor s the citati on of order s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an orderand j udgm entm aybe cited under the term s and conditi ons of 10th C ir . R . 36. 3. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Ju ly31,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT

__________________________ L OUI S J OS E P H M AL E K, P lain tiff - A p p e llan t, v. M ARY AN N REDI NG; M ARY BR OC KB RA DE R; J UNE HI NKL E Y; J OHN GR E E N; P AUL L AR S E N; D O N A L D E . B L A N C H A R D ; C U R T IS GARNER, D efen dan t s - A pp el l ees. N o. 05- 4134 ( U t ah) ( D. Ct . No . 2 : 0 5 - CV- 3 2 2 - P GC)

____________________________ ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e KELLY , O’ BRI EN , and TY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es.

A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det er m i ned unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det er m i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t.W e c o n s tru e p ro s e p le a d in g s lib e ra lly. Ledbetterv. Ci t y of Topeka, Kan . , 318 1 F . 3 d1 1 8 3 , 1 1 8 7 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). SeeD . C . 2: 93- cv- 00612 (U tah) ( 42 U . S. C . § 1983 compl aintdi s m i s s ed as 2 f ri v o lo u s - s e e o rd e r o f

D e c . 2 2 , 1 9 9 3 ), af

f’d Malek I; D . C . 2: 94- cv- 00800 (U tah)

- 2- L oui s J os eph M al ek, a s t at e pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pro se , fi l ed a pr i s oner 1 compl ai ntpur s uantt o 42 U . S. C . § 1983 al l egi ng a vi ol at i on of hi s cons t i t ut i onal rig h ts a risin g f

ro m h is c o n tin u in g in c a rc e ra tio n d u e to p ro c e d u ra l d e ficie n c ies in the d eterm ination o f th e p rop er len g th o f h is sen tenc e. T h e d istri ct co u rt di s m i s s ed t he compl ai ntunder28 U . S. C . § 1915( g) , fi ndi ng M al ek had thr ee pr i or s t r i kes and t hus coul d not pr ocee d w i t houtpay i ng t he fi l i ng fee . M al ek appe al ed, and s eeks l eave t o pr ocee d in fo rm a p a u p e ris ( ifp ). See 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (a)(1); F ED . R. A PP . P . 2 4 ( a ) ( 5 ) . E x e r c i s i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 , we G R A N T M al ek’ s m ot i on t o pr ocee d ifp and R E V E R SE t he j udgm entof t he d istric t co u rt. B ackgr ound In M ay 1 9 7 7 , M alek w as se n tenc ed in state co u rtto o n e to fift ee n y ea rs i mp r i s o n me n tfo r ma n s l a u g h t e r . He wa s r e i n c a r c e r a t e d i n M a r c h 1 9 8 3 o n t wo count s of aggr avat ed r obber yand at t empt ed murde r , forw hi ch offens es he w as se n ten c e d to fiv e y e a rs to life w ith a d d iti o n a l co n se c u tiv e se n ten c e s o f tw o to six y e a rs fo r fir e a rm e n h a n c e m e n ts . Mal ek v . Haun , 2 6 F . 3 d 1 0 1 3 , 1 0 1 5 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ) (Ma lek I) . M a lek h a s filed a n u m b e r o f a c tio n s c h a llen g in g h is i ncar cer at i on. I n t he curr entcas e, M al ek cont ends hi s cons t i t ut i onal r i ght s under 2( s ummaryj u d g me ntg rante df o rd e f e n d ant s inc iv i lc a s e - o rd e ro f Oc t . 2 1 , 1 9 9 7 ) ; D. C. 2 : 9 7 - c v - 0 0 2 4 4 (Utah ) (p e titi o nf o rwrito f

h ab e a s c o rp u s d i s mi s s e dNo v . 9 , 1 9 9 8 ) ; D. C. 2: 03- cv- 00461 (U tah) ( § 1983 compl aintdi s m i s s ed on M ay2, 2005) ; D . C . 2: 03- cv- 01055 (U tah) ( § 1983 compl aintdi s m i s s ed M ay11, 2004) ; D . C . 2: 04- cv- 01062 (U tah) (petiti on fo r w rit of

h ab ea s co rpu s). C ontemporaneous w ith thi s opini on, w e are i s s uing a dec i s i on in M alek v . 3 B ro c kb ra de r, e t a l. , N o . 0 5 -4 1 1 8 , d is m is s in gh is ap p e a l a s f ri v o lo u s . SeeD . C . 2: 03- cv00461 (U tah) ( § 1983 compl aintdi s m i s s ed on M ay2, 2005) . M al ek incurred tw o s trikes inth at ca se , o n e f

o r th e d istric t co urt d ism iss a l an do n e f o r o ur d ism iss a l.

- 3- t he Ei ght h A m endment have be en vi ol at ed byhi s cont i nued i ncar cer at i on pas tt he expi r at i on of hi s or i gi nal s ent ence form ans l aught er , and hi s r i ght s undert he Four t eenth A m endment vi ol at ed byi nadequa t e par ol e boar d pr ocedur es . T he di s t r i ctcour tfound M al ek had “ fi l ed s ever al pr evi ous ci vi l act i ons w i t h t he fe d e ra l co u rts, so m e o f w h ich [ h a d ] b e e n d ism iss e d a s f riv o lo u s o r fa ili n g to sta te a cl ai m . ” ( R . D oc. 8 at1. ) T he cour tl i s t ed Mal ek v . Wheel er , D . C . 2: 03- cv- 1055 (U ta h M a y1 1 , 2 0 0 4 ), Mal ek v . Haun , D . C . 2: 93- cv- 612 ( U t ah D ec. 22, 1993) , and our aff i r m ance i n Mal ek v . Haun , 26 F. 3d 1013 ( 10t h C i r . 1994) . T he cour tt hen di s m i s s ed M al ek’ s compl ai ntunder28 U . S. C . § 1915( g) , r ul i ng he coul d not p ro c e e d w ith o u t p a y in g th e filin g fe e . O n a p p e a l, M a le k c h a lle n g e s , in ter a lia , t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s det er m i nat i on t hathe has t hr ee pr i ors t r i kes , r equi r i ng d ism issal of

h is co m p lai n t. O u r rev iew o f th e c ase s u p o n w h ich th e d istri ct co u rt re lied d e m o n stra tes M a lek h a d o n lyo n e p rio r strik e a t th e tim e h e filed th is compl ai nt , and t hus t he di s m i s s al m us tbe r ever s ed. 3 D i s cus s i on- 4-

Sect i on 1915( g) , t he “thr ee s t r i kes ” pr ovi s i on of t he ifp st at ute, provides: I n no events hal l a pr i s onerbr i ng a ci vi l act i on orappea l a j udgm ent i n a civi l act i on or proceeding u nd er this sect i on i f t he p ri soner has, on 3 or m or e pr i orocca s i ons , w hi l e i ncar cer at ed ordet ai ned i n any fac i l i t y , br oughtan ac t i on or appea l i n a cour tof t he U ni t ed St at es t hatw as di s m i s s ed on t he gr ounds t hati ti s fr i vol ous , m al i ci ous , or fai l s t o s t at e a c l ai m upon w hi ch r el i ef maybe gr ant ed, unl es s t he p ri s o n e r i s u n d e r i m m in e n t d a n g e r o f s e ri o u s p h y s ic a l inju ry. I n Jenni ngs v. Nat r ona C ount y D et ent i on C ent erMedi calFaci l i t y, we r evi ew ed t he rul es gover ni ng qual i fy i ng di s m i s s al s - s t r i kes - under§ 1915( g) as foll ow s: (1 ) H a b e a s c o rp u s a n d 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 p ro c e e d in g s a re n o t civ il act i ons under28 U . S. C . § 1915. H ence , t he di s m i s s al of a ha beas corpus or§ 2255 pet i t i on does notcountas a s t r i ke forpurpos es of l i m i t i ng i n form a p auperi s statu s u n d er § 1 9 1 5 (g). ( 2) A di s t r i ctcour tdi s m i s s al under28 U . S. C . § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) does not countas a s t r i ke unt i l aft ert he l i t i ganthas exhaus t ed orw ai ved h is o p p o rtu n ityto a p p e a l. (3 ) I f w e a ffir m a d is tr ic t c o u rt d is m is s a l u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (e )(2 )(B ), th e d istric t co u rt d ism iss a l th e n c o u n ts a s a sin g le s t r i ke. ( U ndert he pl ai n l anguage of t he s t atut e, onl ya di s m i s s al m ay c o u n t as [ a ] strik e , n o t th e a ffirm a n c e o f a n e a rlier d e c isio n to d is m is s .) (4 ) I f w e re v e rs e a d is tr ic t c o u rt d is m is s a l u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) , t he di s t r i ctcour tdi s m i s s al does notcountas a s t r i ke. ( 5) I f w e di s m i s s as fr i vol ous t he appe al of an a ct i on t he di s t r i ct c o u rt d ism iss e d u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (e )(2 )(B ), b o th d ism iss a ls cou nt as st ri kes. ( 6) I f w e di s m i s s as fr i vol ous a pr i s oner ' s appea l of an a ct i on for w hi ch t he di s t r i ctcour tent er ed j udgm entfordefe ndant , t he di s m i s s al of t he appe al count s as one s t r i ke.- 5-

1 7 5 F . 3 d 7 7 5 , 7 8 0 -81 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). H ere, t he d i st ri ct cou rtcou nted t hree cases as st ri kes: (1) Mal ek v . Haun , D . C . 2: 93- cv- 612, a § 1983 compl ai ntw hi ch w as dis m i ssed as fr i vo l ou s; ( 2) O uraff

i r m ance of t hatdi s m i s s al i n Mal ek v . Haun , 2 6 F .3 d 1 0 1 3 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ); (3) Mal ek v . Wheel er , D . C . 2: 03- cv- 1055, a § 1983 compl ai ntdi s m i s s ed for fai l ure t o ex hau sthis adm i nis t rat i ve rem edies . U n d er Jenni ngs , t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s di s m i s s al i n Mal ek v . Haun cou nts as a s t r i ke. 175 F. 3d at780. H ow ever , ouraff i r m ance of t hatdi s m i s s al does not c o u n t a s a n a d d itio n a l s tr ik e . Id. O nl y“[i ] f w e di s m i s s as fr i vol ous t he appe al of a n a c tio n th e d istric t co u rt d ism iss e d u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (e )(2 )(B ), [ d o ] b o th di s m i s s al s count as s t r i kes . ” Id. I n Mal ek v . Haun w e affi r m ed t he di s t r i ct cour t ’ s di s m i s s al , butw e di d notdi s m i s s t he appe al i t s el f as fr i vol ous . 26 F. 3d at 1016. Fi nal l y , t he di s m i s s al of a § 1983 c om pl ai ntforfai l ur e t o exhaus ti s not c o n s id e re d a s tr ik e , s in c e it is n o t a d is m is s a l p u rs u a n t to § 1 9 1 5 (e )( 2 )( B ). See D ay v. Mayn ard , 200 F. 3d 665, 667 ( 10t h C i r . 1999) ( “[A ] di s m i s s al w i t hout p reju d ice c o u n ts a s a strik e [ o n lyif] th e d ism iss a l is m a d e b e c a u se th e a c tio n is frivo lou s, m ali ciou s, o r fa il s to state a c lai m . ”). T h ere fo re, th e d istri ct co u rt er r ed i n count i ng t he di s m i s s al i n Mal ek v . Wheel eras a s t r i ke. B eca us e M al ek had butone s t r i ke att he t i m e t he di s t r i ctcour tdi s m i s s ed t hi s cas e, he maypr ocee d ifp , i f hi s pet i t i on i s notfr i vol ous . U pon r emand, t he di s t r i ctcour tm aycons i dert hatM al ek now has t hr ee s t r i kes , t he pr evi ous one as- 6-

not ed i n t hi s cas e, and t he t w o i m pos ed i n Mal ek v . B r ockbr ader . See n .3 , supra . W e r emi nd M al ek of hi s obl i gat i on t o cont i nue maki ng par t i al paym ent s unt i l t he b a lan c e o f

th e a p p e llate fili n g fe e is p a id in f u ll. RE VE RS E D. E n ter ed b y th e C o u rt: T err ence L. O ’ B ri en U ni t ed St at es C i r cui tJ udge