Washington v. LA Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't, No. 13-56647 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseWilliam Washington, a California state prisoner, filed suit against defendants, alleging violations of his Eighth Amendment right to adequate medical care and safe prison conditions. At issue is the application of the Prison Litigation Reform Act's (PLRA), 28 U.S.C. 1915(g), three-strikes rule to Washington's suit. The court held that a dismissal pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey may constitute a PLRA strike for failure to state a claim when Heck's bar to relief is obvious from the face of the complaint, and the entirety of the complaint is dismissed for a qualifying reason under the PLRA. Applying this legal framework to the instant case, the court concluded that the Heck dismissal in No. 2:09-CV-3052, does not constitute a PLRA strike. The court held that a dismissal due to Younger v. Harris abstention, similar to a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, is not a strike under the PLRA. As a result, Washington’s two prior dismissals under Younger, Nos. 2:12-CV-5873 and 2:12-CV-7429, do not constitute strikes. In Washington’s case, his two mandamus petitions, Nos. 2:10-CV-54 and 2:10-CV-964, directly challenged underlying criminal proceedings, and are more properly construed as appeals of criminal case habeas claims challenging a criminal conviction and lie outside the scope of the PLRA. Because the district court improperly assessed the existence of prior strikes against Washington, the court reversed and remanded for the district court to assess whether Washington is otherwise entitled to proceed with his action in forma pauperis.
Court Description: Prisoner Civil Rights. The panel reversed the district court’s denial of a prisoner’s motion to proceed in form pauperis after the district court found that the prisoners had accrued at least three prior “strikes” under the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s “three strikes rule.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The panel held that the district court improperly assessed the existence of five prior strikes against plaintiff and therefore the panel remanded for the district court to assess whether plaintiff was entitled to proceed with his action in forma pauperis. Assessing the prior federal filings, the panel held that a dismissal pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), may constitute a strike for failure to state a claim when Heck’s bar to relief is obvious from the face of the complaint, and the entirety of the complaint is dismissed for a qualifying reason under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The panel held that when multiple claims are presented in a single action, a strike may only be assessed when the case as a whole is dismissed for a qualifying reason under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Applying this legal framework to the facts of plaintiff’s prior filing, which intertwined the Heck- barred damages claims with a habeas challenge to the underlying sentence, the panel concluded that the dismissal WASHINGTON V. L.A. CTY. SHERIFF’S DEP’T 3 of plaintiff’s action pursuant to Heck did not constitute a strike. The panel held that a dismissal due to abstention under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), similar to a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, is not a strike. The panel held that plaintiff’s two mandamus petitions, which directly challenged the underlying criminal proceedings, were more properly construed as appeals of criminal cases, and therefore operated like habeas claims that lie outside the scope of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, and do not incur strikes.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.