Background
Wesley Sinclair Ricks, an incarcerated litigant, filed a complaint in the United States Court of Federal Claims concerning his criminal conviction. The Court of Federal Claims determined that he was ineligible to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and directed him to pay the filing fee or face dismissal.
Ricks conceded that at least three of his prior actions or appeals had been dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim. He appealed the denial of in forma pauperis status, submitted an opening brief, and sought various additional relief. After his notice of appeal, the Court of Federal Claims dismissed the underlying action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; Ricks separately appealed that dismissal.
The Court’s Holding
In a nonprecedential per curiam order, the Federal Circuit summarily affirmed the denial of Ricks’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The court concluded that his opening brief presented no cogent, nonfrivolous argument showing that the Court of Federal Claims had erred in applying the three-strikes rule.
Because Ricks’s brief instead appeared merely to challenge the basis for his criminal conviction, the court found that the appeal presented no substantial question as to its outcome. It also denied all pending motions and ordered each party to bear its own costs.
Key Takeaways
- An incarcerated litigant with at least three qualifying prior dismissals may be barred from proceeding in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
- An appellate brief must identify a cogent, nonfrivolous basis for overturning the ruling actually under review.
- The Federal Circuit may summarily affirm when an appeal presents no substantial question concerning the outcome.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates the practical effect of the federal three-strikes rule on incarcerated litigants with repeated qualifying dismissals. It also underscores that arguments directed at an underlying criminal conviction do not establish error in a separate ruling denying in forma pauperis status.
The disposition is nonprecedential and addresses only the denial of in forma pauperis status, not the later jurisdictional dismissal that Ricks challenged in a separate appeal.