Wallace v. All Personal Liability Carriers-Underwriters of Land

Background

Charles Kenneth Wallace, Sr. and Ronald Hillis, both incarcerated at the David Wade Correctional Center, filed this action without lawyers. They asserted claims arising from the opioid crisis against the defendants identified in the caption and sought recovery of defendants’ property. Both plaintiffs asked to proceed without prepaying filing fees.

In December 2022, the court denied Wallace’s request to proceed without prepayment and dismissed the complaint without prejudice under the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s three-strikes provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That provision generally prevents an incarcerated person from proceeding without prepaying fees after three prior federal actions or appeals were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a claim, unless the person faces imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court also stated that Hillis could file a new action and request to waive prepayment if he wished to proceed separately.

Wallace appealed. The Second Circuit vacated the judgment and sent the case back for further proceedings about Wallace’s three-strikes status. It also directed the district court to consider whether a prior Fifth Circuit finding that Wallace had three strikes prevented the district court from reconsidering that issue.

Three-strikes analysis

After independently reviewing the prior proceedings, the court concluded that four matters identified by the Second Circuit should not be counted as strikes:

- In one prior case, the docket did not clearly establish that the dismissal was based on frivolousness, and the court could not review the dismissal order to confirm the basis. - In another matter, the Fifth Circuit’s dismissal of Wallace’s appeal did not expressly state that the appeal was dismissed as frivolous. The appellate court had discussed both possible strike grounds and a non-strike ground, so the basis was unclear. - A third dismissal was based both on frivolousness and lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Because it was a mixed dismissal, the court did not count it as a strike. - A Fifth Circuit summary affirmance of a district court dismissal did not count as a separate strike because Section 1915(g) requires an appeal to be dismissed on a listed ground, and a summary affirmance is not itself such a dismissal.

The court also held that issue preclusion, a rule that can prevent relitigating an issue already fully and fairly decided, did not bind it to the Fifth Circuit’s prior three-strikes finding. Wallace had not litigated that finding and had not received a full opportunity to challenge it.

The court found that Wallace had one other qualifying strike from a prior dismissal for frivolousness or failure to state a claim. It did not count another dismissal that was based on the rule in Heck v. Humphrey because the Second Circuit had not decided whether such dismissals qualify as strikes under Section 1915(g).

Ruling and required filings

The court found that Wallace had not accumulated three strikes and was therefore not barred by Section 1915(g) from proceeding without prepaying the filing fee. It nevertheless did not grant the applications because the prisoner authorization forms did not authorize the required deductions from the prisoners’ accounts.

The court directed Wallace to either pay the $402 in fees or submit a completed prisoner authorization within 30 days. Hillis was required to submit a proper authorization if he intended to pursue the action. The court stated that no summons would issue at that time. If the plaintiffs complied, the case would be processed under the Clerk’s Office procedures; if both failed to comply within the allowed period, the action would be dismissed without prejudice. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied the plaintiffs fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.