Washington v. LA Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t

William Washington, a California state prisoner, filed suit against defendants, alleging violations of his Eighth Amendment right to adequate medical care and safe prison conditions. At issue is the application of the Prison Litigation Reform Act's (PLRA), 28 U.S.C. 1915(g), three-strikes rule to Washington's suit. The court held that a dismissal pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey may constitute a PLRA strike for failure to state a claim when Heck's bar to relief is obvious from the face of the complaint, and the entirety of the complaint is dismissed for a qualifying reason under the PLRA. Applying this legal framework to the instant case, the court concluded that the Heck dismissal in No. 2:09-CV-3052, does not constitute a PLRA strike. The court held that a dismissal due to Younger v. Harris abstention, similar to a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, is not a strike under the PLRA. As a result, Washington’s two prior dismissals under Younger, Nos. 2:12-CV-5873 and 2:12-CV-7429, do not constitute strikes. In Washington’s case, his two mandamus petitions, Nos. 2:10-CV-54 and 2:10-CV-964, directly challenged underlying criminal proceedings, and are more properly construed as appeals of criminal case habeas claims challenging a criminal conviction and lie outside the scope of the PLRA. Because the district court improperly assessed the existence of prior strikes against Washington, the court reversed and remanded for the district court to assess whether Washington is otherwise entitled to proceed with his action in forma pauperis. View "Washington v. LA Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't" on Justia Law