Opinion ID: 2974829
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Coleman’s2 Arguments

Text: As indicated above, Coleman challenges Fitts’ right to maintain this appeal. Therefore, before addressing the issues presented by Fitts, this Court will address the arguments presented by Coleman. Coleman argues this Court cannot hear any of Fitts’ issues due to the three-strikes rule and Fitts’ failure to file transcripts.
A prisoner is precluded from proceeding with in forma pauperis status to appeal a judgment in a civil case if the prisoner has, on three or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained 2 Although there are other appellees-defendants in this case, only Defendant Coleman filed an appellate brief. -5- No. 04-2232 Cameron Fitts v. Kathy Sicker, et. al. at any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it was frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (2006). This prohibition is commonly referred to as the three-strikes rule. An exception to the three-strikes rule exists where the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Further, the rule does not serve as a complete bar to prisoners filing lawsuits; rather, if a prisoner with three strikes wishes to file a suit or appeal, he must now do so at his own expense. Jones Bey v. Johnson, 407 F.3d 801, 809 n. 8 (6th Cir. 2005). Coleman argues seven cases filed by Fitts and later dismissed constitute strikes. Two of these cases, Cameron Fitts v. Thomas Phillips, et al., No. 97-cv-60059 and Cameron Fitts v. Sandra Monroe, 01-cv-10001, were dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Thus, these cases count as two strikes against Fitts. The remaining cases listed by Coleman were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Although lack of jurisdiction is not listed under § 1915 as constituting a strike, Coleman cites Anderson v. Sundquist, 1 F. Supp. 2d 828 (W.D. Tenn. 1998) as authority that dismissals for lack of jurisdiction constitute strikes under § 1915. The court made reference to dismissals due to lack of jurisdiction as it was trying to determine the number of strikes against the prisoner in that case. The court noted, “appellate dismissals for lack of jurisdiction also count, as a case or appeal that is devoid of jurisdiction is plainly frivolous.” Anderson, 1 F. Supp. 2d at 830. This Court, however, has never held that cases dismissed for lack of jurisdiction constitute a strike under § 1915. Moreover, Coleman has failed to provide adequate documentation for this Court to evaluate these prior dismissals. Therefore, none of these cases constitute a strike. Because Fitts only has two strikes -6- No. 04-2232 Cameron Fitts v. Kathy Sicker, et. al. under § 1915, this appeal cannot be dismissed pursuant to the three-strikes rule.
Coleman argues the appeal should be dismissed due to Fitts' failure to file the transcripts. See generally Fed. R. App. P. 10. An appellate court can dismiss an appeal for failure to file the transcripts. Swift v. County of Muskegon, No. 89-1951, 1990 WL 25806,  (6th Cir. March 12, 1990); Drybrough v. Ware, 111 F.2d 548, 550 (6th Cir. 1940). Nonetheless, if the appellee is not prejudiced and there is no evidence the appellant acted in bad faith, dismissal is not warranted. Swift, 1990 WL 25806 at ; Island Creek Coal Co. v. Local Union No. 1827 of UMW, 568 F.2d 7, 8 (6th Cir. 1977). In instances where the appeal is allowed to go forward, the court should proceed to such review as the record allows. Id. But see Creasy v. Jones, No. 97-5752, 1998 WL 384584, -2 (6th Cir. June 19, 1998) (holding none of plaintiff's issues was reviewable since they concerned rulings made during trial and transcripts were unavailable). Without the transcripts of proceedings, the court can restrict the review to the district court's application of the relevant law. Id. Although Coleman argues the appeal should be dismissed, he has not argued he was prejudiced by the absence of the transcripts. Further, there is no evidence Fitts acted in bad faith by not producing the transcripts. In fact, the record reflects Fitts requested transcripts from the trial court, but his requests were denied. Therefore, this Court is permitted to proceed on such review as the record allows. Swift, 1990 WL 25806 at ; Island Creek Coal Co., 568 F.2d at 8. However, without transcripts the Court is unable to review these claims.