Woods v. Fluharty et al.

When Darrell Woods filed a lawsuit against corrections officers based on their retaliatory conduct against him, he was denied in forma pauperis status – meaning he was unable to file without paying the court fees upfront – due to the three-strikes rule in the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), effectively shutting him out of court. The MacArthur Justice Center is fighting to ensure that the PLRA is not weaponized to deny incarcerated people, like Mr. Woods, access to the courts to vindicate their rights simply because they cannot afford it. 

For the past two years, numerous prison officials have victimized Mr. Woods with a pattern of unchecked retaliation. Their misconduct ranged from keeping Mr. Woods in a segregation unit on fabricated disciplinary charges and without a release hearing; depriving him of clothing and bedding; and encouraging other incarcerated people to harass or attack him by offering them rewards, publicly labeling him a snitch, and forcing him to share a cell with documented enemies. 

When Mr. Woods filed a lawsuit against the prison officials, he requested permission to proceed in forma pauperis, which would allow him to pay the filing fee over time, rather than all at once. The district court denied his request based on the PLRA’s three-strikes rule, which counts a “strike” for each lawsuit or appeal an incarcerated person files that gets dismissed by a judge for being deemed frivolous, malicious, or failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. After an incarcerated person gets three strikes, they are generally unable to file another lawsuit in forma pauperis – meaning they are effectively shut out of court if they are unable to pay the several hundred dollar filing fee.  

One of the three “strikes” cited by the district court was a mixed dismissal in which the court dismissed the federal claims but declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims – a type of dismissal that is not counted as a “strike” by every circuit court that has considered the issue. Another “strike” cited by the district court was dismissed for failure to follow certain procedural requirements – not because the lawsuit was deemed frivolous, malicious, or unable to state a proper claim. 

Despite neither of those prior dismissals being “strikes,” the district court erroneously counted them as such, preventing Mr. Woods from attempting to vindicate his rights in court simply because he is unable to afford it. 

The MacArthur Justice Center (MJC), alongside Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, represents Mr. Woods on appeal to the Eighth Circuit. 

UPDATE

The Eighth Circuit summarily affirmed the district court’s erroneous decision without an opportunity for briefing. It then denied Mr. Woods’ petition for the opportunity to be heard on rehearing, providing no explanation for its decision. 

MJC filed a petition for panel or en banc rehearing.