Meeks v. Ray — Fifth Circuit denied fee-free appeal after third PLRA strike

Case
James Arthur Meeks, III v. Tony Ray, Deputy, Fannin County Sheriff’s Office; Mark Johnson, Sheriff, Fannin County Sheriff’s Office; FNU Saxon, Nurse, Fannin County Detention Center; FNU Barnum, Nurse, Health Service Administrator, Fannin County Detention Center; FNU Melton, Registered Nurse, Fannin County Detention Center; Amarnath Laxminarayan, Doctor, Fannin County Detention Center; FNU Johnson, Correctional Officer, Grievances Coordinator, Fannin County Detention Center; FNU King, Physician Assistant, Fannin County Detention Center; Fannin County Municipality; LaSalle Management Company, L.L.C.; LaSalle Corrections, L.L.C.; Melissa Watkins, Fannin County Detention Center Booking Officer; Nick Tredway, Chief Deputy, Fannin County Sheriff’s Office; Stacy King, Warden; LaSalle Corrections West, L.L.C.; and FNU Hilty, Nurse, Fannin County Detention Center
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Judge
Jones; Ho; Engelhardt
Date Decided
August 17, 2026
Docket No.
25-40542
Topics
Prison Litigation Reform Act; Three-Strikes Rule; In Forma Pauperis; Prisoner Appeals
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

James Meeks sought to appeal without prepaying fees after the district court dismissed his case for failure to state a claim. That dismissal was his third qualifying strike under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which generally bars a prisoner with three strikes from bringing a civil action or appeal in forma pauperis unless the prisoner faces imminent danger of serious physical injury.

Meeks argued that the dismissal should not trigger the three-strikes bar while he was appealing that same dismissal. The Fifth Circuit had previously identified that question as unresolved, and other federal courts of appeals had divided over whether a prisoner may proceed in forma pauperis when appealing the judgment that constitutes the third strike.

The Court’s Holding

The Fifth Circuit held that a third qualifying dismissal counts as a strike immediately, even when the prisoner is appealing that very dismissal. The court reasoned that the PLRA’s text and the Supreme Court’s decision in Coleman v. Tollefson require a qualifying dismissal to count while it remains on appeal, whether the pending appeal concerns another case or the third-strike case itself.

The court also concluded that Coleman overruled the Fifth Circuit’s earlier rule in Adepegba v. Hammons that a dismissal does not count as a strike until appellate remedies have been exhausted or waived. Because Meeks’s district-court dismissal was his third strike and no imminent-danger exception was established, the court denied his motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.

Key Takeaways

  • A qualifying PLRA dismissal counts as a strike even while that dismissal is being appealed.
  • The rule applies when the pending appeal directly challenges the third-strike dismissal itself.
  • The Fifth Circuit treated its prior exhaustion-or-waiver rule in Adepegba as overruled by the Supreme Court’s decision in Coleman.

Why It Matters

The published order resolves an open question in the Fifth Circuit and limits prisoners’ ability to obtain appellate review without prepaying fees after receiving a third qualifying dismissal. Prisoners appealing the judgment that creates their third strike must pay the required fees unless they satisfy the PLRA’s imminent-danger exception.

The decision also places the Fifth Circuit on the side of the circuit split that applies the three-strikes bar to an appeal of the third-strike judgment itself.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top