Judge Robert Katzmann
State inmate Jones' pro se 42 USC §1983 action alleged defendant prison officials violated his Eighth Amendment rights. District court denied him leave to proceed in forma pauperis. It found he accumulated three "strikes" under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) while litigating a petition seeking 28 USC §2254 habeas relief. It rejected Jones' argument that dismissals in habeas proceedings cannot count as strikes. Finding that the court erred, Second Circuit—addressing an issue of first impression in the circuit over interpretation of the PLRA's "three strikes" provision—held that dismissals of, and appeals from, habeas petitions cannot constitute strikes. It noted that all other circuits considering the issue have held that dismissals of §2254 or §2255 habeas petitions cannot constitute strikes for PLRA purposes. The PLRA's legislative history showed Congress concerned about frivolous lawsuits by prisoners challenging conditions of confinement. Congress did not envision the PLRA's application to proceedings challenging confinement's lawfulness or duration. Two days before passing the PLRA, Congress enacted the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which sought to curtail frivolous habeas petitions under §§2254 and 2255.
