Opinion ID: 2981540
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Stewart v. Pully

Text: Taylor did not contest that Stewart v. Pully constituted a strike below; therefore, the argument is not preserved for appeal. See Smith v. Detroit Fed. of Teachers Local 231, Am. Fed. Teachers, AFL-CIO, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). “[O]nly those specific objections to the magistrate’s report made to the district court will be preserved for appellate review; making some objections but failing to raise others will not preserve all the objections a party may have.” Id. This rule “‘preclud[es] appellate review of any issue not contained in objections [to the magistrate’s report].’” Wright v. Holbrook, 794 F.2d 1152, 1154-55 (6th Cir. 1986) (alteration in original) (quoting Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 147-48 (1985)). Taylor failed to object to the magistrate’s finding that Stewart counted as a strike. Therefore, the issue was not preserved for appeal and Stewart counts as a strike. However, even if the argument had been preserved, Stewart would count as a strike. In Stewart, Taylor joined with Stewart, a fellow prisoner, to bring claims against a number of defendants. The claims against all but three defendants were dismissed as frivolous. Taylor and Stewart then brought an amended complaint attempting to restore claims against four of the dismissed defendants, adding one claim against an additional defendant, and attempting to refine their prior claims. The amended complaint was accepted insofar as it refined prior claims, but all new claims were dismissed as frivolous. All of Taylor’s remaining claims were dismissed for failure to state a claim. Stewart’s claims against the original three defendants survived, and Taylor asserts that the claims were ultimately settled and voluntarily dismissed. Section 1915(g) addresses claims by a “prisoner” and not collective actions: “the prisoner [who has] brought an action . . . that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or -7- No. 10-6411 Taylor v. First Medical Management, et al. fails to state a claim . . . .” The plain language therefore contemplates that strikes be assessed to an individual prisoner applying for in forma pauperis status. Thus, actions should be determined and strikes allocated on a prisoner-by-prisoner basis. Additionally, a holding otherwise would undermine the purpose of the PLRA: it would allow prisoners to join their cases in the hopes of finding one claim with merit among them, thereby avoiding strikes. Cf. Pointer, 502 F.3d at 375 (discussing purposes underlying PLRA). Though multiple plaintiffs may join together to form a single “action,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(1), as the Third Circuit recognized, joinder could be used as a way to avoid incurring strikes for frivolous actions. See Hagan v. Rogers, 570 F.3d 146, 154-55 (3d Cir. 2009).4 Accordingly, § 1915(g) covers an entire action brought by a prisoner, not the entire case brought jointly by prisoners. When multiple prisoners are joined under Rule 20, strikes may still be incurred for an individual prisoner’s portion of the case if all of that prisoner’s claims are dismissed for failure to state a claim, regardless of the outcome of the other litigants’ claims. In such a situation, the action brought by the prisoner was dismissed, as described by § 1915(g). Such is the case in Pully. Although Taylor’s claims were joined with Stewart, the entirety of Taylor’s claims were dismissed for § 1915(g) reasons. Therefore, even if the argument had been preserved Pully, would count as a strike under § 1915(g). 4 At least one circuit has determined that § 1915 removed prisoners’ ability to bring joint suits. Hubbard v. Haley, 262 F.3d 1194, 1197-98 (11th Cir. 2001). -8- No. 10-6411 Taylor v. First Medical Management, et al.