Jeremy John Wells v. Warden, et al., No. 21-10550 (11th Cir. 2022)

Annotate this Case

Previously, a panel of 11th Circuit judges affirmed the district court's dismissal of Plaintiff's 42 Sec. 1983 claims under the three-strikes rule of the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"). The panel based its decision on precedent holding that a "dismissal for failure to exhaust qualifies as a strike under the PLRA."

The court voted, deciding to hear the appeal en banc. Thus, the panel's decision was vacated.

This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on December 2, 2021.

Download PDF

USCA11 Case: 21-10550 Date Filed: 04/15/2022 Page: 1 of 2 In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-10550 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ JEREMY JOHN WELLS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus WARDEN, CLIFFORD BROWN, Unit Manager, FNU FLUKER, Defendants-Appellees. ____________________ USCA11 Case: 21-10550 2 Date Filed: 04/15/2022 Page: 2 of 2 Opinion of the Court 21-10550 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 1:20-cv-00097-JRH-BKE ____________________ Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, WILSON, JORDAN, ROSENBAUM, JILL PRYOR, NEWSOM, BRANCH, GRANT, LUCK, LAGOA, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges. BY THE COURT: A petition for rehearing having been filed and a member of this Court in active service having requested a poll on whether this appeal should be reheard by the Court sitting en banc, and a majority of the judges in active service on this Court having voted in favor of granting rehearing en banc, IT IS ORDERED that this appeal will be reheard en banc. The panel’s opinion is VACATED.

Primary Holding

The Eleventh Circuit vacated the panel's previous opinion after a majority of the court voted to hear the case en banc.

Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.

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.