Sixth Circuit Clarifies What Constitutes PLRA “Strike” and Reinstates Michigan Prisoner’s Lawsuit
On July 25, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit clarified what constitutes a “strike” for purposes of the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s (PLRA) “three-strikes” rule, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See: Simmons v. Washington, 996 F.3d 350(6th Cir. 2021). It held that, in accordance with Crump v. Blue, 121 F.4th 1108 (6th Cir. 2024), to qualify as a strike all the claims in the previously-dismissed “action or appeal” must have been specifically dismissed as “frivolous, malicious, or fail[Ing] to state a claim.” Because two of the four dismissed prior actions used by the district court to justify denial of in forma pauperis status under § 1915(g) was not for one of those reasons, in the case of a Michigan prisoner it vacated and remanded.
Davarrol Marquavis Taylor filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against staff at the Marquette Branch Prison in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula and moved to proceed in forma pauperis. Citing four previously dismissed lawsuits, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan denied the motion pursuant to the “three-strikes” rule and dismissed the complaint. With the assistance of attorney Christine A. Monta of the Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center in D.C., Taylor appealed.
While the appeal was pending, the district court issued a second order “purporting ‘to clarify the three strikes’ but omitting two previously-cited dismissed cases and replacing them with a different previously-dismissed case.
Taylor conceded that two of the previously-dismissed lawsuits were strikes but maintained that the others were not strikes. Reviewing the issue de novo per Vandiver v. Prison Health Servs., Inc., 727 F.3d 580 (6th Cir. 2013), the appellate Court agreed. It held that the two contested strikes both were dismissed due to Eleventh Amendment immunity, a reason that does not count as a strike per § 1915(a)-(b) and Crump.
The Court noted that a district court generally loses jurisdiction after a party files a notice of appeal except for remedial matters unrelated to the merits of the appeal. This is a narrow exception that the clarifying order, which was an attempt to “materially revise the court’s earlier written decision,” does not fit into. Therefore, the order is “null and void” and the Court did not consider it.
Because the district court erred in denying the motion to proceed in forma pauperis, its judgment was vacated and the case remanded. See: Taylor v. Stevens, 146 F.4th 480 (6th Cir. 2025)
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal cases
Taylor v. Stevens
| Year | 2025 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 146 F.4th 480 (6th Cir. 2025) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
Crump v. Blue
| Year | 2024 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 121 F.4th 1108 (6th Cir. 2024) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
Simmons v. Washington
| Year | 2021 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 996 F.3d 350(6th Cir. 2021) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
Vandiver v. Prison Health Servs., Inc.
| Year | 2013 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 727 F.3d 580 (6th Cir. 2013) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |