Arendas v. Ashlock

Background

Peter John Arendas filed a pro se prisoner action seeking damages based on an allegation that an invalid Washington state warrant had been prepared and led to his arrest in California. He asked to proceed without paying the filing fee, a status known as proceeding in forma pauperis (IFP).

IFP ruling and plaintiff’s response

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 IFP when the prisoner has had three or more prior federal prisoner actions dismissed because they were frivolous, malicious, or failed 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 prior dismissals and did not meet the imminent-danger exception.

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

Arendas filed a motion arguing that his prior dismissals should not count because they occurred in 2010, when he was inexperienced in the law. The court rejected that argument. It stated that dismissals for failure to state a claim count as strikes under § 1915(g), and that a person’s pro se status or limited legal skills do not change whether a prior dismissal qualifies as a strike.

Disposition

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 it in a new paid complaint. The clerk was instructed to close the file and terminate as moot the motion listed as ECF No. 4.