Griffin v. Carnes

Background

Kevin Griffin, who was incarcerated at Clinton Correctional Facility, filed this action without a lawyer and asked to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. On February 22, 2022, the court found that Griffin had filed at least three prior actions or appeals that had been dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim. The court ordered him to show why the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s three-strikes provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), should not bar him from filing future federal civil actions without prepaying fees while he remained a prisoner.

Griffin submitted a declaration, but the court found that it did not rebut the prior finding that he had accumulated at least three strikes.

The Three Prior Strikes

The court addressed three prior matters:

1. Griffin I: The Northern District of New York dismissed Griffin’s action under Rule 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. The dismissal rested on claim preclusion, also called res judicata; untimeliness; and failure to allege a violation of federal rights. The court held that a dismissal for failure to state a claim counts as a strike under Section 1915(g), even if the dismissal order does not cite Section 1915(g), and whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice does not change that result.

2. Griffin II: The Second Circuit dismissed Griffin’s appeal as lacking an arguable basis in law or fact. The court held that an appeal can count as a separate strike even when it arises from a district-court action that also counts as a strike.

3. Griffin III: The Northern District of New York dismissed Griffin’s later action because his claims were barred by res judicata and recommended dismissal under Sections 1915(e) and 1915A. The court held that the dismissal counted as a strike even though the order did not identify the specific subsections used and even though Griffin’s appeal was pending. A dismissal on qualifying grounds can count while an appeal remains pending.

Griffin’s Arguments

Griffin argued that the first matter should not count because it was dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) rather than Section 1915(g). He also argued that the appeal from that matter should not be counted separately, that the later district-court dismissal should not count while its appeal was pending, and that the later dismissal should not count because it was issued under Sections 1915(e) and 1915A. He further challenged the correctness of the earlier dismissals and stated that he had not received appointed counsel. The court said it could not reconsider the earlier decisions in this case and that requests to set aside those judgments had to be made in the courts that issued them.

Ruling and Disposition

The court concluded that Griffin had filed three or more actions or appeals that qualified as strikes under Section 1915(g). It therefore imposed the three-strikes bar, preventing Griffin from filing future federal civil actions without prepaying filing fees while he is a prisoner unless he is under an imminent threat of serious physical injury.

The court warned that frivolous filings could lead to additional sanctions, including monetary penalties. It terminated all other pending matters in the case and certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith; accordingly, fee-free status was denied for purposes of an appeal.