Coleman v. Tollefson (575 U.S. 532)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided May 18, 2015 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 575 U.S. 532 · 135 S. Ct. 1759
- Decided
- May 18, 2015
- Term
- October Term 2014
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice Breyer
- Issue area
- Civil Rights
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party lost
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice BREYERdelivered the opinion of the Court. Ordinarily, a federal litigant who is too poor to pay court fees may proceed in forma pauperis. This means that the litigant may commence a civil action without prepaying fees or paying certain expenses. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915. But a special "three strikes" provision prevents a court from affording in forma pauperisstatus where the litigant is a prisoner and he or she "has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated ..., brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted." § 1915(g). Prior to this litigation, a Federal District Court had dismissed on those grounds three actions brought by a state prisoner. While the third dismissal was pending on appeal, the prisoner sought to bring several additional actions in the federal courts. The question before us is whether the prisoner may litigate his new actions in forma pauperis. Where an appeals court has not yet decided whether a prior dismissal is legally proper, should courts count, or should they ignore, that dismissal when calculating how many qualifying dismissals the litigant has suffered? We conclude that the courts must count the dismissal even though it remains pending on appeal. The litigant here has accumulated three prior…
Excerpt of a 15,042-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.