2007 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 11-9-2007 

# Nichol a s v . Ame r D et ec t i

ve Agc y P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-2018

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2007 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Nicho l as v

. Ame r D e t e ct ive Ag c y " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 229. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/229CL D- 2 2 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

________________ N o. 07- 2018

________________ ED W A RD J . N I CH O LA S, A ppel l ant

v. AM E RI CA N DE T E CT I VE AGE NC Y; J OS E P H AL L E RC I A; RI CH AR D L ONG; DONAL D HE F F NE R; S CO T T A. E VANS ; T HOMAS GR I S E R; T I M OT HY KE AT I NG, E S Q. ; E L I Z AB E T H L E F F L E R; L OWEL L WI T M E R; M AR YL I N B RO OKS

__________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 06- cv- 00219) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le S e a n J. M c L a u g h lin

__________________________ S u b mi t t e d f

o rP o s s i b l e Di s mi s s a l P u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B) o r S u m m a ry A c tio n P u rs u a n t to T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6 O ct ober25, 2007 B efor e: A M B R O , FU E N T E S, and J O R D A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: N ovember9, 2007)

______________ OP I NI ON

______________ P E R C UR I AM E dw ar d J . N i chol as appea l s fr om the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or derdeny i ng hi s m ot i on forN i chol as i s curr ent l yon par ol e and w as gr ant ed i n form a paupe r i s s t atus forpurpos es 1 o f th is a p p e a l. 2 l eave t o pr ocee d i n form a paupe r i s . W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291, 1 and r evi ew i s s ues of s t atut or ycons truct i on de novo. See A bdul - A kbarv. M cK el vi e, 239 F. 3d 307, 311 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . W e w i l l s um m ar i l yvaca t e the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or derand rem and for further proceedings. T he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed N i chol as ’ s m ot i on on t he gr ounds thathe had thr ee s t r i kes under28 U . S. C . § 1915( g) ( t he di s m i s s al s of W . D . Pa. C i v. N os . 06- 112, 06- 98, and 06- 201) and had notal l eged thathe w as i n “i m m i nentdanger . ” Tw o of the s t r i kes on w hi ch the D i s t r i ctC our tr el i ed, how ever , w er e di s m i s s al s of compl ai nt s thathad noty et been e nt er ed w hen N i chol as fi l ed the i ns t ants ui t . See W . D . Pa. C i v. N os . 06- 112, 06- 201. M or eover , N i chol as w enton t o appea l eac h of the thr ee di s m i s s al s r el i ed on byt he D istric t C o u rt, an d th o se a p p e a ls w e re n o t co m p lete d a t th e tim e N ich o las f iled h is com plai nt. S ee C . A . N os. 06 -4362 , 06 -4361 , 06 -4367 . A dis m i ssal do es not quali fyas a s t r i ke for§ 1915( g) purpos es unl es s and unt i l a l i t i ganthas exhaus t ed orw ai ved hi s orher appel l at e r i ght s . See J enni ngs v. N atr ona C ount yD et . C t r . M ed. Faci l i t y , 175 F. 3d 775, 7 8 0 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ); A d e p e g b a v . H a m m o n s , 1 0 3 F .3 d 3 8 3 , 3 8 7 -8 8 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). T her efor e, N i chol as di d nothave thr ee s t r i kes w hen the D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed hi s m ot i on, and the D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n r equi r i ng hi m t o demonstr at e thathe w as underi m m i nent dangerof s er i ous phy s i cal i nj ur ybefor e pr ocee di ng i n form a paupe r i s atthatt i m e. See 28 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (g).3

T he fa ctt hatt hi s C our thas s i nce di s m i s s ed N i chol as ’ s appea l s of the afor ement i oned D i s t r i ctC our tor der s under28 U . S. C . § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) , s ee C. A . N os . 06- 4 3 6 2 , 0 6 -4 3 6 1 , 0 6 -4 3 6 7 , d o e s n o t c h a n g e th a t r e s u lt. B yits te rm s , § 1 9 1 5 (g ) g o v e rn s o n lyth e c irc u m sta n c e s u n d e r w h ich a p riso n e r m a y“ b rin g ” a c iv il act i on i n form a paupe r i s , w hi ch means thati t s i m pactm us tbe as s es s ed atthe t i m e a pr i s onerfi l es hi s orhercompl ai nt . See A bdul - A kbar , 239 F. 3d at313; G i bbs v. R y an, 1 6 0 F . 3 d 1 6 0 , 1 6 2 - 6 3 ( 3 d Ci r . 1 9 9 8 ) . Th u s , o n l yth e s t r i k e s a c tu a l l ye a r n e d a tth e t i me th e c o m p lain t w a s f

iled a re re lev a n t. T h e sta tu te d o e s n o t au th o riz e c o u rts to re v o k e in form a paupe r i s s t atus i f a pr i s onerl at erearns thr ee s t r i kes . See G i bbs , 160 F. 3d at163 (e x p lain in g th a t C o n g re ss “ lim ited th e ‘th re e strik e s’ p ro v isio n to a n in m a te’ s a b ili tyto ‘b rin g ’ a n a c tio n . C o n g re ss c o u ld h a v e tied th e ‘th re e strik e s’ b a r to a n in m a te’ s a b ili tyto m aintain a n ac ti o n . Itd id n o t do so . ”). A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l s um m ar i l yvaca t e the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or derand di r ectthe D istric t C o u rt to e v a lu a te N ich o las ’s m o tio n f o r le a v e to p ro c e e d in f o rm a p a u p e ris in lig h t o f th is o p in io n .