- The 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled against a North Carolina prison inmate who sued state Attorney General Josh Stein and 17 other officials.
- Inmate Jonathan Brunson had attempted to proceed with his lawsuit "in forma pauperis," meaning he could avoid the $402 filing fee for his legal action.
- Appellate judges ruled Brunson must pay a filing fee like any other plaintiff after failing a three-strike rule set out in federal law. It's the first time the 4th Circuit has decided whether a case dismissed under a precedent called Heck counts as a strike against the inmate.
A North Carolina prison inmate’s lawsuit against state Attorney General Josh Stein and other state officials could lead to fewer similar lawsuits in the future. The 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Monday that the inmate could not avoid paying a filing fee for going to court.
Jonathan Brunson, imprisoned on a sexual abuse conviction, sued Stein and 17 others under federal Section 1983. It permits lawsuits against state officials accused of depriving a plaintiff of his federal constitutional rights.
Brunson sought permission to proceed with his case “in forma pauperis.” That means he would face no cost for pursuing the lawsuit.
Appellate judges ruled Monday that Brunson’s suit ran up against a federal law designed to limit a “flood of nonmeritorious” lawsuits from prison inmates.
“It is sometimes said that a judge’s duty is to ‘call balls and strikes,’” wrote Judge Julius Richardson for a unanimous three-judge appellate panel. “This case actually requires us to do so.”
“The Prison Litigation Reform Act’s (PLRA) ‘three-strikes’ rule bars prisoners from suing in forma pauperis if, while incarcerated, they filed three or more federal civil actions or appeals that were dismissed for frivolity, malice, or failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” Richardson explained.
“One knuckleball has long divided umpires: whether a dismissal under Heck v. Humphrey is a PLRA strike,” the 4th Circuit opinion continued.
The 1994 Heck decision “held that a federal court may not entertain a state prisoner’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit for money damages if that suit’s success would necessarily undermine the legality of his conviction or confinement, unless the prisoner has first ‘invalidated’ the legality of his confinement.”
“Today, we hold that a Heck dismissal is necessarily for failure to state a claim and thus counts as a PLRA strike,” Richardson wrote.
“A prisoner who receives three strikes must prepay the filing fee before proceeding, just like any other plaintiff,” the opinion added.
Brunson had filed four previous § 1983 suits that were dismissed under the Heck precedent. A trial judge first allowed Brunson to proceed with the suit against Stein and other state officials without paying a fee. The judge later “vacated that order after deciding that Brunson was precluded from proceeding in forma pauperis by the PLRA’s three-strikes rule,” Richardson wrote.
The inmate paid his $402 filing fee but challenged the ruling. The judge later dismissed the suit for reasons unrelated to the dispute over costs.
In ruling against Brunson Monday, the 4th Circuit determined the Heck precedent’s impact on the three-strike rule for the first time. “Until now, our Circuit had not waded into this conceptual morass,” Richardson wrote.
Other appellate courts across the country have reached different conclusions about the same issue.
“This question is the subject of an entrenched circuit split,” Richardson wrote. “The Third, Fifth, Tenth, and D.C. Circuits have held that Heck dismissals are necessarily for failure to state a claim. “The Second, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits, meanwhile, have held, to varying degrees, that Heck dismissals are not, or sometimes are not, strikes under the PLRA.”
The Heck precedent established a “favorable termination” rule. A prison inmate cannot seek damages under § 1983 in a way that questions the validity of his conviction unless he can show that the criminal proceeding ended in his favor.
“All told, the upshot of Heck’s holding — that certain plaintiffs have a cause of action only if they show favorable termination — is that when such a plaintiff does not show favorable termination, that plaintiff has no cause of action and thus fails to state a claim,” Richardson wrote.
“In sum, everything in Heck points to the conclusion that favorable termination is an element of a plaintiff’s cause of action under § 1983. Arguments to the contrary don’t hold water. And without a cause of action, a plaintiff has no claim upon which relief may be granted,” Richardson added.
“‘[T]o be a good judge and a good umpire, you have to follow the established rules and the established principles,’” Richardson wrote, quoting US Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
“Since Brunson has filed at least three prior actions that were dismissed as Heck-barred, our role as umpires is to strike him out under the PLRA,” the appellate decision concluded.
Judges Paul Niemeyer and Toby Heytens joined Richardson’s opinion.