El-Shaddai v. Wang, No. 13-56104 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseAdonai El-Shaddai, while incarcerated in California, filed at least eleven lawsuits against prison officials prior to filing this case. At issue is whether these previous cases amount to at least three “strikes” under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA), 28 U.S.C. 1915(g), such that El-Shaddai is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis (IFP) in this and future cases. The court held that El-Shaddai has not incurred three strikes because only one of the prior actions was dismissed on the grounds that it was frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's contrary decision and remanded for the district court to assess whether El-Shaddai is otherwise entitled to proceed in forma pauperis.
Court Description: Prisoner Civil Rights. The panel reversed the district court’s denial of a prisoner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis after the district court found that the “three-strikes” rule in the Prison Litigation Reform Act prohibited the prisoner from proceeding in forma pauperis because he had brought at least three actions that were “dismissed on the grounds that [they were] frivolous, malicious, or fail[ed] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The panel held that of the eleven potential strikes that the district court may have relied upon in finding the prisoner 4 EL-SHADDAI V. WANG ineligible for in forma pauperis status, only one was a valid strike under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Therefore, the panel remanded for the district court to assess whether the prisoner was otherwise entitled to proceed in forma pauperis. In assessing whether the prior dismissals qualified as strikes, the panel held that: (1) in an action where in forma pauperis status is denied solely on the ground that the plaintiff has accumulated too many strikes, and there has been no additional finding that the action is itself frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim, the denial of in forma pauperis status and subsequent dismissal of the case do not count as a strike for purposes of § 1915(g); (2) the district court’s prior dismissal of an action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, as required under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, did not count as a strike because the failure to exhaust was not clear from the face of the complaint, and the district court made no finding that the complaint was frivolous or malicious; (3) the prior summary- judgment dismissals did not count as strikes because they were not decided on the ground that the complaint was frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim, but rather were decided on evidentiary grounds; (4) an appellate affirmance does not count as separate strikes unless the court expressly states that the appeal itself was frivolous, malicious or failed to state a claim; and (5) actions brought pursuant to § 1983 which challenge the fact or duration of a prisoner’s sentence and should be construed as habeas petitions, do not count as strikes. EL-SHADDAI V. WANG 5
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.