[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 12-13169

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 3:10-cv-00070-WBH

WESLEY EUGENE DOLLAR, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

COWETA COUNTY SHERIFF OFFICE, 

MEDICAL STAFF, 

SGT. PAT H. LYONS, 

SHERIFF MICHAEL S. YEAGER, 

CAPTAIN LYNN WOOD, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________

(February 27, 2013)

Before CARNES, BARKETT and HULL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 12-13169 Date Filed: 02/27/2013 Page: 1 of 6 
2

Wesley Eugene Dollar, a Georgia prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the 

district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint. The 

district court dismissed Dollar’s complaint without prejudice under the three 

strikes provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), concluding that Dollar had been 

erroneously granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. After review, we vacate 

the district court’s order of dismissal and remand this appeal for further 

proceedings.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On June 11, 2010, Dollar filed a § 1983 complaint against the Coweta 

County Sheriff Office, the Coweta County Jail medical staff, and various prison 

officers. Dollar’s complaint alleged that in November 2008, he was arrested and 

taken to the Coweta County Jail. Dollar alleged that, while at the jail, (1) he was 

interviewed without being advised of his Miranda rights and while still under the 

influence of pain medication and needing detoxification; (2) during the interview, 

he was tightly handcuffed to a chair, which injured his left hand; (3) he was forced 

to sleep on the floor for three weeks due to overcrowding; (4) he did not have 

access to fresh drinking water, suffered respiratory problems due to a raw sewage 

leak and staph infections from rusty beds and showers; (5) jail medical staff 

provided inadequate medical treatment for his injured left hand, spinal injury and 

Case: 12-13169 Date Filed: 02/27/2013 Page: 2 of 6 
3

respiratory problems; and (6) he was denied access to a law library or other legal 

assistance and the right to exhaust his administrative remedies.

The district court dismissed Dollar’s complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915A, concluding that his claims of unlawful confinement were 

improperly brought under § 1983 and should have been brought as a habeas 

petition. The district court dismissed his claims relating to excessive force and 

confinement conditions because Dollar had not exhausted all administrative 

remedies at the jail. 

Dollar appealed to this Court, which affirmed the district court’s dismissal of 

his unlawful confinement claims. See Dollar v. Coweta Cnty. Sheriff Office, et al., 

446 F. App’x 248, 251 (2011). However, this Court vacated the dismissal of 

Dollar’s excessive force and conditions-of-confinement claims and ordered the 

appeal remanded to the district court as to those claims, concluding that it was not 

clear from the face of the complaint that Dollar had failed to exhaust available 

administrative remedies. Id. at 251-52.

II. REMAND BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT

On remand from this Court, the district court determined sua sponte that 

Dollar previously had filed numerous civil actions in federal courts while 

incarcerated, at least three of which had been dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(g). The district court therefore concluded that, in light of these 

Case: 12-13169 Date Filed: 02/27/2013 Page: 3 of 6 
4

dismissals, § 1915(g) prohibited Dollar from bringing any civil actions while 

proceeding in forma pauperis. On this basis, the district court found that it had 

erroneously granted Dollar leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed his 

§ 1983 complaint without prejudice. Thereafter, Dollar filed a timely notice of 

appeal.1

III. DISCUSSION

Under the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) prisoners are permitted 

to file only three meritless suits in the in forma pauperis status. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(g). Specifically, the “three strikes” provision of the PLRA provides:

In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment 

in a civil action or proceeding under this section if the prisoner has, on 

3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any 

facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that 

was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to 

state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is 

under imminent danger of serious physical injury.

Id. The purpose of the PLRA is to conserve judicial resources by preventing 

meritless cases initiated by prisoners. Vanderberg v. Donaldson, 259 F.3d 1321, 

1324 (11th Cir. 2001). “After the third meritless suit, the prisoner must pay the full 

filing fee at the time he initiates suit.” Id.

Our published decisions have consistently looked at the time of filing when 

considering whether § 1915(g) prevents a prisoner from proceeding in forma 

 1

We review de novo the district court’s dismissal of a complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(g). Miller v. Donald, 541 F.3d 1091, 1100 (11th Cir. 2008).

Case: 12-13169 Date Filed: 02/27/2013 Page: 4 of 6 
5

pauperis. See Brown v. Johnson, 387 F.3d 1344, 1347 (11th Cir. 2004) (stating 

that a prisoner is prevented from proceeding in forma pauperis “after he has filed 

three meritless lawsuits” (emphasis added)); Dupree v. Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234, 

1236 (11th Cir. 2002) (examining whether a prisoner’s complaint fell under 

§ 1915(g) “at the moment of filing”)); Vanderberg, 259 F.3d at 1324 (“After the 

third meritless suit, the prisoner must pay the full filing fee at the time he initiates 

suit.” (emphasis added)). The plain reading of § 1915(g) also suggests that strikes 

are to be counted at the time the complaint is filed. The relevant language of the 

provision reads “[i]n no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action . . . if the 

prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions . . . brought an action or appeal in a 

court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, 

malicious, or fails to state a claim. . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (emphasis added).

After review of Dollar’s litigation record, we conclude that the district court 

erred when it dismissed Dollar’s complaint under § 1915(g). When Dollar filed his 

complaint in the present case on June 11, 2010, he only had “one strike” against 

him, based on the dismissal of his 2007 case for frivolousness. See Dollar v. 

Duffey, 3:07-cv-0085-JTC (N.D. Ga., dismissed September 28, 2007). With the 

exception of this 2007 case, the district court supported its dismissal order by 

Case: 12-13169 Date Filed: 02/27/2013 Page: 5 of 6 
6

referencing cases brought by Dollar that were dismissed in 2011.2 As such, Dollar 

filed his complaint in the present case prior to becoming a “three-striker,” and the 

district court’s conclusion that Dollar was prohibited from proceeding in forma 

pauperis is erroneous. 

Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s dismissal order and remand this 

appeal to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.3

VACATED AND REMANDED.

 2

In support of its holding, the district court cited to these cases filed by Dollar: Dollar v. 

Carter, Case No. 11-13591 (11th Cir. Nov. 23, 2011), Dollar v. Carter, Case No. 10-15195 (11th 

Cir., Apr. 15, 2011); Dollar v. Carter, 5:10-cv-208 (M.D. Ga., July 26, 2011); Dollar v. Kemp, 

3:11-cv-0018-WLB (M.D. Ga., July 8, 2011); Dollar v. Newnan Times-Herald, et al., 3:10-cv83-WBH (N.D. Ga., Jan. 3, 2011). Dollar’s 2007 case was Dollar v. Duffey, 3:07-cv-0085-JTC 

(N.D. Ga., Sept. 28, 2007).

3

Dollar’s request, made by letter dated September 25, 2012, and construed by this Court 

as a motion for sanctions, is DENIED.

Case: 12-13169 Date Filed: 02/27/2013 Page: 6 of 6