Opinion
3:22-CV-318-RLM-MGG
03-13-2023
JACOB WALTER FARRIS, Plaintiff, v. MIKE NEVILLE, Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
Robert L. Miller, Jr. Judge
Jacob Walter Farris, a prisoner without a lawyer, was given until March 31, 2023, to file a second amended complaint. ECF 24. He was cautioned if he didn't do so, this case would be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A because the amended complaint didn't state a claim. Id. Mr. Farris responded by filing a motion to dismiss. ECF 25.
A dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A qualifies as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Letting an inmate voluntarily dismiss a case after being told it doesn't state a claim would allow him to file an endless number of meritless lawsuits without incurring a single strike. That would defeat the purpose of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which was intended to reduce frivolous litigation by prisoners. See Greyer v. Illinois Dep't of Corr., 933 F.3d 871, 874 (7th Cir. 2019) (observing that one of the purposes behind the PLRA “was to rein in the flood of prisoner litigation-all too often frivolous or vexatious”). The PLRA shouldn't be applied in a manner that permits prisoners to skirt the three-strikes provision. Paul v. Marberry, 658 F.3d 702, 705 (7th Cir. 2011).
For these reasons, the court:
(1) DENIES the motion to dismiss (ECF 25);
(2) DISMISSES this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A because the amended complaint did not state a claim for which relief could be granted; and
(3) DIRECTS the clerk to close this case.
SO ORDERED.