Case Name: Franklin HIESTAND, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-09
Citations: 114 F. App'x 767
Docket Number: No. 04-2666
Parties: Franklin HIESTAND, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
Judges: Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, MURPHY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 114
Pages: 767–768

Head Matter:
Franklin HIESTAND, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 04-2666.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 30, 2004.
Decided Dec. 9, 2004.
Franklin Hiestand, pro se, Bonne Terre, MO.
Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, MURPHY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Missouri inmate Franklin Hiestand appeals the dismissal without prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for nonpayment of the filing fee, after the district court determined he was ineligible under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) to bring his action in forma pau peris (IFP). Hiestand also moves for leave to proceed IFP on appeal. Because we find he had not yet accumulated "three strikes" when the district court ruled, we grant Hiestand leave to appeal IFP, assess the filing fee according to the provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, and leave the collection details to the district court.
We also find that Hiestand's section 1988 action was subject to dismissal, but on the ground that the complaint was frivolous. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989) (defining frivolous); Saulsberry v. St Mary's Univ. of Minn., 318 F.3d 862, 866 (8th Cir.2003) (appellate court may affirm district court's order on any basis supported by record). Counting this dismissal, Hiestand now has three strikes and will be barred from proceeding IFP in future actions or appeals, unless he meets the imminent-danger exception noted in section 1915(g).
Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47A(a).