Case: 12-10646 Date Filed: 10/30/2012 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-10646
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:12-cv-00002-JES-DNF
BRIAN MICHAEL CASEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MIKE SCOTT, Sheriff,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(October 30, 2012)
Before HULL, MARCUS and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 12-10646 Date Filed: 10/30/2012 Page: 2 of 3
Brian Casey, a Florida state pre-trial detainee proceeding pro se, appeals the
sua sponte dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pursuant to the “three-strikes”
provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Casey
asks this Court to vacate the district court’s order of dismissal because his prior
complaints, on which the dismissal was based, should not have been dismissed. After
careful review, we affirm.1
We review de novo the denial of a motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis under the “three-strikes” provision of the PLRA. Dupree v. Palmer, 284
F.3d 1234, 1235 (11th Cir. 2002).
A prisoner may not proceed in forma pauperis in a civil action where he has,
during his incarceration, filed three prior actions that were dismissed as frivolous,
malicious, or for failure to state a claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). There is an exception
where the prisoner is “under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” Id. When
this provision prevents the filing of an action, the court must dismiss the complaint
without prejudice. Palmer, 284 F.3d at 1236.
The district court must search the record of the plaintiff’s federal cases to
determine if they were dismissed for the relevant reasons. Rivera v. Allin, 144 F.3d
1
In addition, because we affirm the district court’s dismissal of his complaint, we also
DENY the motion for summary judgment he filed in this Court.
2
Case: 12-10646 Date Filed: 10/30/2012 Page: 3 of 3
719, 726 (11th Cir. 1998), abrogated on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S.
199 (2007). Plaintiffs are bound by the judgments in their prior cases, and may not
dispute their merits in order to challenge a “three-strikes” determination. See
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Sunnen, 333 U.S. 591, 597 (1948) (ruling that
parties to a cause of action are bound by final judgments on the merits). Rather, the
proper avenue for challenging the merits of a final judgment is to appeal under the
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Fed.R.App.P. 3.
Here, Casey does not assert that he is in danger of physical injury, so the
“three-strikes” rule applies to this case. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). As the records show,
the district court dismissed Casey’s complaints on three prior occasions for failure to
state a claim. Casey did not appeal these dismissals, which was the proper avenue for
challenging their merit. See Fed.R.App.P. 3. He is therefore bound by the judgments
in his prior cases. Sunnen, 333 U.S. at 597. As a result, Casey cannot claim error in
prior dismissals as a basis for challenging the court’s ruling. Therefore, we affirm the
district court’s dismissal of Casey’s civil action pursuant to the “three-strikes”
provision of the PLRA.
AFFIRMED.
3