Maurice Hawkins v. GRTC of Richmond, Virginia ( 2024 )

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1627 Doc: 16 Filed: 11/21/2024 Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-1627
MAURICE HAWKINS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
GRTC OF RICHMOND, VIRGINIA,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:24-cv-00347-MHL-MRC)
Submitted: November 19, 2024 Decided: November 21, 2024
Before QUATTLEBAUM, RUSHING, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Logan Leete Page, WILKINSON STEKLOFF LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellant.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 24-1627 Doc: 16 Filed: 11/21/2024 Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Maurice Hawkins, a Virginia inmate, appeals the district court’s order dismissing
his civil action without prejudice after concluding that Hawkins, who had not paid the filing
fee, was a three-striker who did not qualify to proceed in forma pauperis. * On appeal,
Hawkins contends that one of the strikes identified by the district court—Hawkins v.
Johnson, No. 7:04-cv-00360-GEC-MFU (W.D. Va. filed July 12, 2004 & entered July 13,
2004)—should not have counted as a strike because it involved a mixed decision. We
affirm.
Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, a prisoner who has accrued three or more
strikes—actions or appeals dismissed as frivolous, as malicious, or for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted—may not proceed without prepayment of fees
unless he “is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). To
count as a strike, the entire action must be dismissed on one or more of these enumerated
grounds. Tolbert v. Stevenson, 635 F.3d 646, 651 (4th Cir. 2011).
In Hawkins v. Johnson, Hawkins alleged an Eighth Amendment violation and a
Fourteenth Amendment violation. He also attached to his complaint a prison grievance in
which he complained of negligence. The district court dismissed the constitutional claims
for failure to state a claim. Regarding the grievance, the court observed that negligence is
a state law tort that is not cognizable in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The court then
explained: “This court could exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state tort claim if
*
Hawkins has paid the appellate filing fee.
2
USCA4 Appeal: 24-1627 Doc: 16 Filed: 11/21/2024 Pg: 3 of 3
there were a valid federal claim presented as well. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). However,
because there are no valid federal claims, this court cannot entertain a complaint based
solely on a state tort claim.”
Hawkins maintains that he asserted a negligence claim over which the district court
declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. We disagree. First, a review of the district
court’s opinion makes clear that the court construed Hawkins’s complaint as alleging only
the two constitutional claims. Moreover, the court expressly stated, both in its opinion and
the accompanying order, that the entire action was dismissed for failure to state a claim,
thus belying Hawkins’s argument that the court rendered a mixed decision. Finally, even
if the court thought that Hawkins intended to raise a negligence claim, the court stated that
it lacked discretion to consider it. Thus, contrary to Hawkins’s assertion, the court did not
merely decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.
Because the district court dismissed the entirety of Hawkins v. Johnson for failure
to state a claim, we reject Hawkins’s challenge to his three-striker designation.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Hawkins v. GRTC of Richmond, No.
3:24-cv-00347-MHL-MRC (E.D. Va. June 4, 2024). We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3