Megginson v. Molina

Background

The City of New York notified the court that, while reviewing Michael Megginson’s allegations, it found that he had previously proceeded without paying filing fees in at least three actions in the Southern District of New York. The City argued that those earlier actions had been dismissed for failure to state a claim and that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), known as the “three strikes rule,” therefore prohibited Megginson from proceeding without paying filing fees in this action.

Legal standard

Section 1915(g), part of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, generally bars a prisoner from proceeding without paying filing fees if, on three or more prior occasions while incarcerated or detained, the prisoner brought actions dismissed because they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim. The court noted that dismissals for reasons other than those specifically listed in the statute do not count as strikes. It also stated that dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies is not one of the listed grounds.

Ruling

The court declined to revoke Megginson’s status allowing him to proceed without paying filing fees. It found that the dismissal in one earlier case was for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, not for one of the grounds identified in Section 1915(g). The opinion does not state that the court separately determined whether the other referenced dismissals counted as strikes.

It is so ordered.