Griffin v. Carnes ( 2023 )


Menu:
  • 22-1134
    Griffin v. Carnes
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
    ______________
    August Term 2022
    (Submitted: May 22, 2023| Decided: June 30, 2023)
    Docket No. 22-1134
    KEVIN GRIFFIN,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    CHARLES CARNES, TOWN OF CRAWFORD SUPERVISOR,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    ______________
    Before:
    POOLER, WESLEY, PARK Circuit Judges;
    _________________
    KEVIN GRIFFIN, pro se, Dannemora, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    KARA J. CAVALLO, J&G Law, LLP, Walden, NY, for Defendant-
    Appellee.
    _________________
    PER CURIAM:
    Plaintiff-Appellant Kevin Griffin, pro se and incarcerated, appeals from the
    dismissal of his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action. The district court dismissed his complaint,
    concluding that Griffin was barred from proceeding in forma pauperis (“IFP”)
    because he had accumulated three “strikes” under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (g) of the Prison
    Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). See Griffin v. Carnes, No. 21-cv-11111, 
    2022 WL 1304463
    , at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 2, 2022). Section 1915(g) bars a prisoner from
    proceeding IFP, absent a showing of imminent danger, if on three or more
    occasions while incarcerated, he has brought an action or an appeal that was
    “dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim
    upon which relief may be granted.” 
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (g).
    This appeal asks us to consider whether (1) a res judicata dismissal and (2) a
    dismissal of an entire complaint on several alternative grounds—one of which
    qualifies as a strike under existing precedent—can constitute strikes under
    Section 1915(g). We hold that they can and, in this case, do. We therefore affirm
    the district court’s conclusion that Griffin was barred under the PLRA from
    proceeding IFP.
    2
    BACKGROUND
    Griffin, incarcerated and proceeding pro se, brought this action against
    Charles Carnes, the supervisor of the Town of Crawford, alleging that Carnes
    wrongfully fired him from his position as a town police officer.
    Griffin moved for leave to proceed IFP. The district court ordered Griffin to
    show cause why his motion should not be denied under the PLRA’s three strikes
    provision. See Griffin v. Carnes, No. 21-cv-11111, 
    2022 WL 523625
    , at *1 (S.D.N.Y.
    Feb. 22, 2022). Following his response, the district court denied Griffin’s request,
    concluding that he had not alleged that he was “‘under imminent danger of
    serious physical injury,’” 
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (g), and had accumulated three strikes
    based on the dismissals of prior claims and appeals he had by then pursued while
    incarcerated: Griffin v. DiNapoli, No. 16-cv-914, 
    2017 WL 3835334
     (N.D.N.Y.
    Aug. 30, 2017) (Griffin I); Griffin v. DiNapoli, No. 17-2887, 
    2018 WL 11341638
     (2d.
    Cir. Mar. 15, 2018) (Griffin II); Griffin v. DiNapoli, No. 21-cv-282, 
    2021 WL 5370057
    (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 18, 2021) (Griffin III).
    These prior actions centered on Griffin’s claim that the New York State
    Comptroller unlawfully denied him disability benefits. First, in Griffin I, the
    district court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of
    3
    Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), holding that Griffin’s claim (1) was barred by res judicata
    because he had unsuccessfully litigated his claim in state court; (2) was untimely
    under Section 1983’s three-year statute of limitations; and (3) failed to allege facts
    sufficient to state a claim for relief. See 
    2017 WL 3835334
    , at *6–7.
    Second, in Griffin II, we affirmed the dismissal of Griffin I, concluding that
    the appeal “lack[ed] an arguable basis in either law or in fact.” 
    2018 WL 11341638
    ,
    at *2 (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 
    490 U.S. 319
    , 325 (1989) and citing 28 U.S.C
    § 1915(e)).
    Finally, in Griffin III, the district court dismissed Griffin’s claim as barred by
    res judicata because Griffin sought to relitigate the denial of his disability benefits.
    
    2021 WL 5370057
    , at *1–2.
    Based on these dismissals, the district court held that Griffin had
    accumulated three strikes and, therefore, was barred from proceeding IFP under
    Section 1915(g) of the PLRA. It dismissed Griffin’s Section 1983 claim without
    prejudice and entered judgment on May 2, 2022. Griffin timely appealed.
    DISCUSSION
    “The district court’s decision that a certain type of dismissal constitutes a
    ‘strike’ for purposes of § 1915(g) is an interpretation of a federal statute . . . which
    4
    this Court reviews de novo.” Escalera v. Samaritan Vill., 
    938 F.3d 380
    , 381 (2d Cir.
    2019) (per curiam) (internal citation omitted).
    The PLRA’s “three-strikes” provision provides that:
    In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment
    in a civil action or proceeding under this section if the prisoner has,
    on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any
    facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that
    was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails
    to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner
    is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
    
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (g).
    I.     Griffin I
    In Griffin I, the district court granted the defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to
    dismiss Griffin’s claims, reasoning that they were, alternatively, barred by res
    judicata, untimely under the applicable statute of limitations, and failed to allege
    facts sufficient to state a claim. See 
    2017 WL 3835334
    , at *6–7. The district court
    correctly concluded that Griffin I constitutes a strike.
    This Court has not yet addressed when a strike should accrue following a
    dismissal on alternative grounds. We agree with the Ninth Circuit’s approach that
    a dismissal on alternative grounds constitutes a strike where one of the grounds
    for dismissal would independently justify a strike and was “a fully sufficient
    5
    condition” for dismissal of all claims. O’Neal v. Price, 
    531 F.3d 1146
    , 1155–56 (9th
    Cir. 2008).
    The Ninth Circuit’s reasoning is consistent with our decision in Escalera v.
    Samaritan Village, where, in addressing so-called mixed dismissals, we concluded
    that “a prisoner’s entire ‘action or appeal’ must be dismissed on a § 1915(g) ground
    to count as a strike under the PLRA.” 938 F.3d at 382 (quoting § 1915(g)). We
    reasoned that when some claims are dismissed on Section 1915(g) grounds and
    some claims are not, “counting a partial § 1915(g) dismissal as a strike could result
    in the anomalous situation where a prisoner succeeds on some claims yet still
    accrues a strike if others are dismissed on § 1915(g) grounds.” Id.
    In Griffin I, all the claims were dismissed on three alternative grounds, one
    of which qualifies as a Section 1915(g) strike under existing precedent.
    Specifically, the district court concluded that Griffin’s claims were governed by a
    three-year statute of limitations, and that Griffin’s complaint was filed well
    beyond that time period. It is settled law in this Circuit that a statute of limitations
    dismissal counts as a Section 1915(g) strike. See Akassy v. Hardy, 
    887 F.3d 91
    , 95 (2d
    Cir. 2018). Specifically, we held in Akassy that “the dismissal of a prisoner's action
    as time-barred, if based on the allegations in the complaint,” counts as “a dismissal
    6
    for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted within the meaning of
    [Section] 1915(g).” 
    Id.
          Accordingly, that ground independently qualifies as a
    strike under Akassy, and, in Griffin I, provided “a fully sufficient condition” for
    dismissal. O’Neal, 
    531 F.3d at 1156
    . The district court therefore properly assessed
    a strike based on Griffin I. 1
    II.    Griffin II
    In Griffin II, this Court dismissed Griffin’s appeal from the district court’s
    decision in Griffin I, concluding, under Section 1915(e), that his appeal “lack[ed]
    an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” 
    2018 WL 11341638
    , at *2 (quoting
    Neitzke, 
    490 U.S. at
    325 and citing 
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (e)). This dismissal counts as a
    strike because, as the Supreme Court explained in Neitzke and as we subsequently
    recognized in Akassy, “the very essence of frivolousness within the meaning of
    § 1915 is the lack of an arguable basis in law or in fact.” Akassy, 
    887 F.3d at
    96
    (citing Neitzke, 
    490 U.S. at 325
    , 327–28).
    1We noted in Escalera that it was an “open question . . . whether a ‘failure to state a claim’
    dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) necessarily qualifies as a strike
    under the PLRA,” Escalera, 938 F.3d at 383 n.5 (citing Byrd v. Shannon, 
    715 F.3d 117
    , 124
    (3d Cir. 2013)). In light of our analysis above, we need not decide that issue today.
    7
    Griffin argues that he can accrue only one strike when both a complaint and
    the appeal of the dismissal of the complaint are dismissed on Section 1915(g)
    grounds. He is incorrect. A dismissal of an appeal as frivolous counts as a separate
    strike. See Chavis v. Chappius, 
    618 F.3d 162
    , 165, 167–69 (2d Cir. 2010). Griffin II is,
    accordingly, a strike.
    III.   Griffin III
    In Griffin III, Griffin sued the New York State Comptroller, again
    challenging the denial of his application for disability benefits. The district court
    dismissed Griffin’s complaint sua sponte under 
    28 U.S.C. §§ 1915
    (e) & 1915A,
    ruling that it was barred by res judicata. See Griffin III, 
    2021 WL 5370057
    , at *1–2.
    In the proceedings below, the district court concluded a res judicata dismissal
    amounts to a strike under the PLRA. See Griffin v. Carnes, 
    2022 WL 1304463
    , at *3.
    We have not addressed whether a res judicata dismissal can constitute a
    Section 1915(g) strike, but the other circuits that have addressed this question have
    uniformly ruled that it can. In Gleash v. Yuswak, the Seventh Circuit reasoned that
    a res judicata dismissal constituted a strike, where the affirmative defense of res
    judicata was “so plain from the language of the complaint and other documents in
    the district court’s files that it render[ed] the suit frivolous.” 
    308 F.3d 758
    , 760–62
    8
    (7th Cir. 2002). Likewise, the Eighth Circuit has counted a res judicata dismissal as
    a strike under Section 1915(g) where the action barred by the defense was “based
    on the same claims and against the same defendants” as a previously dismissed
    action. Higgins v. Carpenter, 
    258 F.3d 797
    , 801 (8th Cir. 2001) (per curiam).
    Drawing on those cases, we agree that a res judicata dismissal can constitute
    a strike, at least where, as here, the ruling was based on the face of the complaint,
    and the action is plainly barred by res judicata.
    First, this interpretation of Section 1915(g) is consistent with our
    interpretation of another subsection of the PLRA, Section 1915(e). Section 1915(e)
    directs that a district court shall dismiss an action brought by a litigant proceeding
    IFP if, at any time, the court determines that it “fails to state a claim on which relief
    may be granted.” 
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (e)(2)(B)(iii). We have previously held that an
    action barred by res judicata may be properly dismissed under Section 1915(e)
    when a litigant proceeds IFP. See Cieszkowska v. Gray Line New York, 
    295 F.3d 204
    ,
    206 (2d Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (citing 
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (e)(2)).
    Section 1915(g) utilizes the same phrase; it provides that a strike accrues
    where a previous action or appeal was dismissed because it, among other reasons,
    “fail[ed] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (g).
    9
    The mirror-image language is significant: the Supreme Court has directed that
    courts should construe phrases consistently across two subsections of the PLRA.
    See Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez, 
    140 S. Ct. 1721
    , 1725 (2020). Accordingly, this Court’s
    holding in Cieszkowska that an action barred by res judicata is subject to dismissal
    under Section 1915(e) suggests that a court may also count a res judicata dismissal
    as a strike under Section 1915(g). See Cieszkowska, 
    295 F.3d at 206
    .
    Second, considering a res judicata dismissal as a strike under Section 1915(g)
    of the PLRA is consistent with our decision in Akassy. In Akassy, we concluded
    that a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal based on a statute of limitations, another affirmative
    defense, was a strike. 
    887 F.3d at 95
    . We emphasized that a statute of limitations
    dismissal at the motion to dismiss stage is appropriate where the complaint’s
    untimeliness is apparent on its face.      In those circumstances, the statute of
    limitations dismissal signals that the action fails to state a claim upon which relief
    may be granted for purposes of Rule 12(b)(6), and there is “no reason” not to
    consider a time-barred dismissal as “a dismissal for failure to state a claim on
    which relief may be granted within the meaning of [Section] 1915(g).” 
    Id.
    The same is true of res judicata. Like a statute of limitations defense, “res
    judicata is a waivable defense that a court is nonetheless free to raise sua sponte”
    10
    and may consider on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Walters v. Indus. & Com. Bank of China,
    Ltd., 
    651 F.3d 280
    , 293 (2d Cir. 2011); see also Salahuddin v. Jones, 
    992 F.2d 447
    , 449
    (2d Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (affirming sua sponte dismissal on res judicata grounds).
    Moreover, both statute of limitations and res judicata dismissals—at least where
    clear on the face of the complaint—further the PLRA’s goal of helping to “staunch
    a flood of nonmeritorious prisoner litigation.” Lomax, 
    140 S. Ct. at 1723
     (internal
    quotation omitted).
    We therefore hold, consistent with our sister circuits, that a res judicata
    dismissal can constitute a strike under the PLRA, at least where the defense was
    clear from the allegations in the complaint, and the action is plainly barred by res
    judicata. Those requirements are met here. Accordingly, the district court correctly
    considered Griffin III a strike for purposes of Section 1915(g).
    In his brief, Griffin argues that Griffin III and Griffin I were wrongly decided
    and should not count as strikes. But Section 1915(g) does not provide Griffin an
    opportunity to relitigate his prior cases. We have considered Griffin’s remaining
    arguments and conclude they are meritless. The district court correctly concluded
    that Griffin was barred by the PLRA’s three strikes provision from proceeding IFP,
    and, therefore, properly dismissed his complaint.
    11
    CONCLUSION
    For the reasons set forth above, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district
    court.
    12