Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Haddrick Byrd v. Robert Shannon

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Decided March 11, 2013No. 11-1744Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partFuentes, Circuit Judge

As noted by the majority, under the “three strikes” provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), once a prisoner has, on three occasions, “brought an action or appeal ... that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” that prisoner is barred from bringing any further civil actions under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 (“PLRA”). 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). In my view, the primary question in this appeal is whether an action that is not explicitly dismissed for being “frivolous, malicious, or failing] to state a claim upon…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Anders v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. Melvin P. Deutsch v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1995
  3. Pointer v. WilkinsonCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2007
  4. Raymond W. Snider v. Dr. MelindezCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1999
  5. Thompson v. Drug Enforcement AdministrationCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2007

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API