Arendas v. Cardell

Background

Peter John Arendas filed a prisoner action seeking damages for alleged unlawful extradition and interference with pending litigation. He was proceeding without a lawyer and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee, a status commonly called proceeding in forma pauperis (IFP).

On April 10, 2020, the court denied Arendas’s IFP application under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That provision generally bars a prisoner from proceeding without paying the fee when the prisoner has had three or more prior prisoner actions dismissed by a federal court as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim, unless the prisoner faced an imminent danger of serious physical injury when filing. The court found that Arendas had three or more qualifying dismissals and did not qualify for the imminent-danger exception.

The court gave Arendas 28 days either to show why § 1915(g) did not apply or to pay the $400 filing fee. The court warned that failing to do either would result in dismissal without prejudice to bringing a new paid complaint.

Plaintiff’s Response

Arendas argued that the prior dismissals should not count as strikes because they occurred in 2010, when he was “unlearned” in the law. He also argued that the three-dismissal rule was intended for abusive litigation and that his prior cases had been dismissed only for failure to state a claim.

Ruling

The court rejected those arguments. It stated that dismissals for failure to state a claim count as strikes under § 1915(g), and that a litigant’s self-represented status or limited legal skills do not affect whether a prior dismissal counts.

Because Arendas had three or more strikes and did not qualify for the imminent-danger exception, the court held that § 1915(g) barred him from proceeding IFP. The court dismissed the action without prejudice to bringing a new paid complaint. It instructed the clerk to close the file and terminate all pending motions as moot.