STATEMENT OF ISSUES AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

As Justice Powell once stated, “it is fundamental that justice should be the same, in substance and availability, without regard to economic status.” Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr., Address to the American Bar Association, 3 (Aug. 10, 1976). Yet many people in America’s jails and prisons are routinely denied access to the courts—solely because they are poor. Under the three strikes provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), incarcerated people must pay courts’ full filing fees up front, if they have three “strikes” for prior dismissed suits. But the vast majority of incarcerated people are indigent, and cannot meet this expense. As a result, the three strikes rule operates as a de facto ban on even meritorious litigation by impoverished prisoners.

A closer look at prisoners’ harsh economic conditions clarifies the rule’s preclusive effect. The criminal justice system begins assessing fees immediately upon arrest: Booking fees and other miscellaneous costs are often imposed without regard to whether the arrestee is ultimately found guilty. And throughout incarceration, expenses continue to mount, as institutions charge for basic living expenses and require incarcerated people to cover the costs of their own confinement. People in jail and prison are often impoverished prior to arrest, and prison wages are extraordinarily low. Thus, the vast majority have no hope of saving hundreds of dollars to pay courts’ initial filing fees. The three strikes rule fully prevents these incarcerated individuals from bringing suit.

This denial of access to the courts has far-reaching consequences. Systemic abuses and disastrous conditions can proceed unchecked in the absence of corrective litigation. And the public, too, loses an opportunity to learn what goes on beyond prison walls.

Congress’s claimed intent in enacting the PLRA was to curb excessive and frivolous litigation. However laudable that goal may have been, the three strikes rule has proven in practice to be an impassable bar for many incarcerated people, leaving them wholly without recourse for serious deprivations of important constitutional rights. As a result, the three strikes rule should be narrowly construed, so as to prevent it from barring an ever-greater swath of litigation.

This case sharply highlights these concerns. As set out in his brief, Appellant Jeremy Wells was severely beaten by other prisoners, suffering “a ruptured ear drum; burns on both eyes; a right-eye contusion; an inner-throat abrasion” and other injuries. Appellant Br. at 6. Before the beating, guards ignored Mr. Wells’s repeated warnings that his safety was in jeopardy; afterwards, they mocked his injuries. Yet when Mr. Wells brought suit, the district court summarily dismissed his claims, concluding that his prior cases had been dismissed for failure to exhaust, and must be counted as strikes. This determination in no way related to the merits of his claims—indeed, even the merits of Mr. Wells’s prior suits had no bearing, since those earlier suits were barred for failure to exhaust, not for failure to state a claim. Mr. Wells cannot afford to pay the courts’ fees, and thus the district court’s decision regarding his three strikes status effectively foreclosed Mr. Wells from litigating his claims.

For the reasons set out in Appellant’s brief, the district court’s holding that failure to exhaust amounts to a strike is legally incorrect. In addition, the district court’s decision improperly broadens the reach of the three strikes provision, by defining a strike far too expansively. Many incarcerated people confront the precise circumstances that Mr. Wells confronted here, where their right to litigate is cut off, only because they cannot afford to pay courts’ filing fees. An inspection of their economic circumstances sheds light on the need to narrowly construe the three strikes provision here.

ARGUMENT

I. The Costs of Incarceration Are High

Being incarcerated is expensive. Over the past several decades, “[e]very aspect of the criminal justice process has become ripe for charging a fee.” Lauren- Brooke Eisen, Charging Inmates Perpetuates Mass Incarceration, Brennan Ctr. for Justice, 1 (2015).

A variety of costs are assessed before a person even passes through the prison gates. Booking fees—flat fees imposed upon arrest, often without regard to ultimate conviction—have become commonplace. Id. at 3; see also Jones v. Clark Cty., No. 2018-CA-001710, 2020 WL 757095, at *3 (Ky. Ct. App. Feb. 14, 2020) (upholding booking fee despite dismissal of charges). Fees for the services of a public defender are also routine. “Forty-three states use some form of cost recovery for public defenders, and 27 of these charge upfront registration fees.” Devon Porter, Paying for Justice: The Human Cost of Public Defender Fees, A.C.L.U. of S. Cal., 2 (June 2017).

Moreover, states impose miscellaneous “court fees” and use them to subsidize various expenses—ranging from general support for the state’s budget, to maintenance for courthouse buildings, to other ends far afield from criminal prosecution. Matthew Menendez, Michael F. Crowley, Lauren-Brooke Eisen & Noah Atchison, The Steep Costs of Criminal Justice Fees and Fines, Brennan Ctr. for Justice, 6 (Nov. 21, 2019). For example, in Florida, fees are allocated “to the state’s general coffers.” Id. “North Carolina collects 52 separate fees … using them to fund … the state’s judicial budget as well as jails, law enforcement, counties and schools.” Id. And in Louisiana, fees were transferred to a judicial expense fund, which paid for “two Ford Expeditions … and a full-time private chef” for judges. Id.

Once incarcerated, prisoners face additional costs. Under what are commonly termed “pay-to-stay” policies, many institutions charge for room and board. These fees may take the form of per diem charges, ranging in cost from several dollars up to $142.42 per day. Lauren-Brooke Eisen, Paying for Your Time: How Charging Inmates Fees Behind Bars May Violate the Excessive Fines Clause, 15 Loy. J. Pub. Int. L. 319, 325 (Spring 2014); see also Jessica Lussenhop, The US Inmates Charged Per Night in Jail, BBC News Magazine (Nov. 9, 2015). Other institutions charge for basic necessities, such as meals, toilet paper, and medical care. Eisen, 15 Loy. J. Pub. Int. L. at 325-26; see also Brennan Ctr. for Justice, Is Charging Inmates to Stay in Prison Smart Policy? (Sept. 9, 2019) (50 state map detailing pay-to-stay fee laws nationwide).

Even in the absence of pay-to-stay fees, incarcerated people are routinely required to cover the cost of essential items. Clothing, hygiene products, food items, and healthcare materials often must be purchased from a private vendor, through the prison commissary. Stephen Raher, The Company Store and the Literally Captive Market: Consumer Law in Prisons and Jails, 17 Hastings Race & Poverty L. J. 3, 17 (Winter 2020). Members of the public may assume that the prison commissary functions as a source of luxury or comfort items, but, consider: If your only bathing option is a shared shower area, aren’t shower sandals a necessity? Is using more than one roll of toilet paper a week really a luxury (especially during periods of intestinal distress)? Or what if you have a chronic medical condition that requires ongoing use of over-the-counter remedies (e.g., antacid tablets, vitamins, hemorrhoid ointment, antihistamine, or eye drops)? All of these items are typically only available in the commissary, and only for those who can afford to pay. Stephen Raher, The Company Store: A Deeper Look at Prison Commissaries, Prison Policy Initiative (May 2018).9 In 2016, for example, Massachusetts prisoners purchased “over 245,000 bars of soap,” not a luxury item. Id.

Phone calls to loved ones are another significant expense. Taking note of the “excessive rates and egregious fees on phone calls” within prison facilities, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) capped interstate phone call rates at 21 cents per minute, and recently voted to lower that rate to 12 cents per minute for prisons, and 14 cents for jails with populations of 1,000 or more. 47 C.F.R. § 64.6030 (setting interim rate of 21 cents per minute); FCC, Telephone Services for Incarcerated Individuals (Oct. 27, 2020);FCC, FCC Lowers Interstate and International Prison Phone Rates to Help Families Stay Connected (May 20, 2021). But, for incarcerated people whose work is compensated at rates of only 14 to 63 cents per hour, even 12 cents per minute is a substantial cost. Wendy Sawyer, How much do incarcerated people earn in each state?, Prison Policy Initiative (Apr. 10, 2017).

Moreover, “80 percent of jail and prison calls are intrastate,” and thus do not benefit from FCC regulation. Marie Feyche, FCC Approves Plan to Lower Interstate and International Jail and Prison Phone Call Rates, Jurist (May 23, 2021). As a result, the cost of local calls is far greater: “Nationally, the average cost of a 15-minute [local] call from jail is $5.74.” Peter Wagner & Alexi Jones, State of Phone Justice: Local Jails, State Prisons and Private Phone Providers, Prison Policy Initiative (Feb. 2019). And certain facilities may charge even higher rates: In Arkansas, for example, the same 15-minute call may cost as much as $24.82. Id.

All told, the path from arrest through release is littered with fees, which begin accumulating before the doors are even closed, and continue to crop up daily throughout incarceration.

II. Incarcerated People Have Scant Access to Resources While Imprisoned

Incarcerated people are largely unable to meet these swelling costs. An estimated 80% of America’s incarcerated people are indigent. See Lauren-Brook Eisen, Charging Inmates Perpetuates Mass Incarceration, Brennan Ctr. for Justice 1, 4 (May 21, 2015); Reuben Jonathan Miller & Amanda Alexander, The Price of Carceral Citizenship: Punishment, Surveillance, and Social Welfare Policy in an Age of Carceral Expansion, 21 Mich. J. Race & L. 291, 298 (2016). On average, people in prison have little to no income in the years prior to incarceration. Adam Looney & Nicholas Turner, Work and Opportunity Before and After Incarceration, Brookings Institution, 8 (Mar. 14, 2018). “Two years prior to the year they entered prison, 56 percent of individuals have essentially no annual earnings (less than $500), the share earning between $500 and $15,000 is 30 percent, and average earnings (among those who worked) was $12,780.” Id. This means that the typical person enters the system without a financial safety net to cover prison costs.

Further, prison wages are extraordinarily low. On average, people in prison earn between 14 and 63 cents per hour. Sawyer, How much do incarcerated people earn. In federal institutions, work assignments pay 12 to 40 cents per hour. Federal Bureau of Prisons, Work Programs. The scant availability of decent wages is illustrated by the fact that, if offered the opportunity, incarcerated people will accept large risks for marginally increased pay. For example, in California, incarcerated people fight wildfires for “just $2 per day, or $1 an hour if fighting an active fire.” Neveen Hammad, Shackled to Economic Appeal: How Prison Labor Facilitates Modern Slavery While Perpetuating Poverty in Black Communities, 26 Va. J. Soc. Pol’y & L. 65, 82 (Summer 2019).

For people with negligible assets before incarceration, who earn a pittance while incarcerated, the costs of incarceration discussed above are astronomical. As discussed, the FCC has capped the cost of interstate phone calls at 12 to 14 cents a minute—meaning that, under prevailing prison wages, many people in prison must work one hour to pay for a single one-minute phone call. And for intrastate calls, which are not regulated by the FCC and are often subject to much higher rates, prisoners often must work far longer to afford the same one-minute call. Further, a $5 per diem fee—well within the typical range—exceeds the daily earnings of many prisoners, who are generally paid only a fraction of a dollar an hour. There are other examples:

In Colorado … it costs an incarcerated woman two weeks’ wages to buy a box of tampons; maybe more if there’s a shortage. Saving up for a $10 phone card would take almost two weeks for an incarcerated person working in a Pennsylvania prison.

Sawyer, How much do incarcerated people earn in each state?.

As a result, incarcerated people often must turn to their families for support—but their families are ill-positioned to provide relief. “[T]he incarcerated population is concentrated among individuals—mostly boys—from low-income, single parent families.” Looney & Turner, Work and Opportunity Before and After Incarceration, at 13 (“[O]f the individuals incarcerated at around age 30 … 82 percent are from the bottom half of families [as ranked by income].”). In addition, many families face further financial distress as a result of their loved one’s incarceration. “The probability that a family is in poverty increases by nearly 40 percent while a father is incarcerated.” Executive Office of the President of the United States, Economic Perspectives on Incarceration and the Criminal Justice System, 5 (Apr. 23, 2016).

Thus most incarcerated people cannot meet the costs of daily prison life. “80 to 85 percent of inmates now leave prison” in debt. Joseph Shapiro, As Court Fees Rise, The Poor Are Paying The Price, Nat. Public Radio (May 19, 2014); see also Terry-Ann Craigie, Ames Grawert & Cameron Kimble, Conviction, Imprisonment, and Lost Earnings, Brennan Ctr. for Justice, 6 (Sept. 15, 2020) (detailing severe detrimental impact of incarceration on lifetime earnings).

Debt accumulated from interaction with the criminal justice system can “trigger a cascade of debilitating consequences,” becoming “a hindrance to obtaining a driver’s license, [restricting] voting rights, and [interfering] with obtaining credit and making child support payments.” Karin D. Martin, Sandra Susan Smith & Wendy Still, Shackled to Debt: Criminal Justice Financial Obligations and the Barriers to Re-Entry They Create, Nat. Inst. of Justice & Harvard Kennedy School, Executive Session on Community Corrections, 9 (Jan. 2017). Perhaps most troubling, debt is a significant contributor to re incarceration, as failure to pay fines and fees can lead to the revocation of probation or re-arrest. Id. at 9-10; see also Menendez, Crowley, Eisen & Atchison, The Steep Costs of Criminal Justice Fees and Fines, at 10 (“Often when someone is unable or unwilling to pay a fee or fine, the court issues a warrant.”).

For most prisoners, the costs of incarceration present an ongoing, Sisyphean challenge, where charges for their basic needs far exceed their ability to pay. And, upon release, arrears accrued in prison often significantly constrain their ability to successfully reenter society.

III. Filing Fees Are Insurmountable for Most Incarcerated People

Perhaps unsurprisingly then, most incarcerated people find court filing fees impossible to pay all at once. To be clear, the PLRA mandates that all prisoners must pay courts’ filing fees: Prisoners granted in forma pauperis status are permitted to pay the fee over time. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). But the three strikes rule imposes an even greater burden, by denying in forma pauperis status and requiring that prisoners pay the full filing fee up front. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). This lump sum cost is simply unachievable for most incarcerated people.

In federal district courts, the initial filing fee is $402: a base fee of $350 set by statute, with another $52 assessed as a miscellaneous fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); U.S. Courts, District Court Miscellaneous Fee Schedule, ¶14 (Dec. 1, 2020). An incarcerated person earning 40 cents an hour would have to work 1,005 hours to pay that initial fee. And an incarcerated person making 14 cents an hour—at the low end of average prison wages—would have to work 2,871 hours, or nearly an entire year of daily 8-hour shifts, without weekends, sick days, or other interruptions.

The filing fee for a federal appeal is even higher, at $500. U.S. Courts, Court of Appeals Miscellaneous Fee Schedule, ¶2 (Dec. 1, 2020). Other fees incident to litigation, such as transcripts and copies of the record on appeal, may cost “thousands of dollars.” Maus v. Baker, 729 F.3d 708, 709-10 (7th Cir. 2013) (Posner, J., sitting as motions judge); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(c). If a particular case were appealed, and necessitated $1,000 in transcripts and other record costs, the total amount of litigation would rise to $1,902. At 40 cents an hour, that price would require 4,755 hours of labor; at 14 cents an hour, it would rise further still, to 13,585 hours. This is simply unattainable: Even assuming that an incarcerated person worked 8-hour shifts, every day of the year, under either wage rate, the cost would take years to pay—during which time, the person would still have to bear the costs flowing from initial court fees and daily prison living.

Put simply, for most incarcerated people, filing fees are beyond their means. Once an incarcerated person is found to have accumulated three strikes, and the PLRA mandates that they pay the full filing fee up front, litigation becomes entirely unreachable—solely because of poverty.

IV. The Three Strikes Rule Bars Meritorious Claims

As a result of this regime, grave constitutional deprivations may go unheard simply because incarcerated litigants are too poor to sue.

To take one recent example, over the last year and a half, COVID-19 has run rampant through America’s jails and prisons. Eddie Burkhalter et al., Incarcerated and Infected: How the Virus Tore Through the U.S. Prison System, N.Y. Times (Apr. 10, 2021). In some institutions, “four in five inmates were infected”; in others, nearly all. Id. As of April 2021, “one in three inmates in state prisons are known to have had the virus,” while “[i]n federal facilities, at least 39 percent of prisoners are known to have been infected.” Id. At least 2,700 incarcerated people have died. Id.

But as prisoners brought litigation contesting these dire conditions, scores of suits were barred solely because of the PLRA’s three strikes provision. See, e.g., Munn v. Singleton, No. 4:20-CV-04078, 2020 WL 7212576, at *1-2 (W.D. Ark. Dec. 7, 2020) (collecting cases; barring suit alleging that “guards distribute medication in an unsanitary manner; that no masks are passed out; that no bleach is passed out; that screening is not taking place”); Johnson v. Wilcher, No. CV 420 089, 2020 WL 2064935, at *2 (S.D. Ga. Apr. 28, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, 2020 WL 5807970 (S.D. Ga. Sept. 29, 2020) (dismissing suit alleging “[heightened] risk of contracting the virus [due to] proximity to other inmates that have tested positive for the disease and the failure of the Sheriff to provide masks, gloves, disinfecting products”); Jones v. Douglas Cty. Jail, No. 20-3091, 2020 WL 1492703, at *1 (D. Kan. Mar. 27, 2020) (dismissing suit alleging staff “are refusing to give masks to inmates to prevent exposure to Covid-19” and certain prisoners were known to have been exposed to the virus).

Even apart from the global health crisis, a consequence of the three strikes rule is that beatings, rapes and other dangerous living conditions may go unchecked. See, e.g., Goldman v. Elum, No. 2:19-cv-10390, 2019 WL 6828313, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 13, 2019) (dismissing claims of rapes by guards); Johnson v. Pace, No. 17-0504, 2018 WL 719048, at *1 (S.D. Ala. Jan. 11, 2018), report and recommendation adopted, 2018 WL 716609 (S.D. Ala. Feb. 5, 2018) (dismissing suit where guards denied cleaning supplies when faulty sewage system resulted in feces and urine dripping into cell; delivered food in such a manner that waste water dripped into the food; and twice beat plaintiff after complaints); Robinson-Bey v. Calloway, No. 17-CV-2198, 2017 WL 6813678, at *1 (C.D. Ill. Oct. 13, 2017) (dismissing suit alleging denial of “desperately needed” medical treatment for “degenerative joint disease (osteoarthritis) that causes … severe pain in [plaintiff’s] lower back and legs”); Dillon v. Blake, No. 14-CV-2416, 2014 WL 4966086, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 2014) (dismissing allegations that guards at Riker’s Island jail “threatened to sexually assault or forcibly rape Plaintiff”).

Importantly, the effect of a meritorious suit extends beyond bringing relief to an individual person: Litigation also provides a public record. By denying incarcerated people the opportunity to present their claims, the three strikes rule also denies the public the opportunity to learn about conditions in America’s jails and prisons, and thus impedes efforts at reform.

CONCLUSION

Because of prisoners’ dire economic circumstances, the three strikes rule often operates to foreclose even meritorious claims. Here, the district court errantly concluded that Mr. Wells’s prior dismissals for failure to exhaust should be counted as strikes, effectively barring him from suit since he could not afford to pay the filing fee. As discussed in Appellant’s brief, the district court’s decision is at odds with the statutory text and the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007). It also improperly broadens the scope of the three strikes rule, sweeping far too many claims into the three strikes rule’s preclusive regime.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

Equal access to justice is a fundamental principle, suggesting that legal recourse should be available regardless of a person's financial standing. However, many individuals within the nation's correctional facilities are routinely denied access to the courts, primarily due to their inability to pay. This issue often stems from a specific provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), known as the "three strikes rule."

Under this rule, incarcerated individuals who have accumulated three prior dismissed lawsuits are required to pay all court filing fees upfront. The vast majority of people in jails and prisons are indigent, meaning they lack the financial resources to meet such an expense. Consequently, the three strikes rule effectively operates as a barrier, preventing even valid legal claims from being heard simply because the claimant is poor.

The severe economic conditions faced by incarcerated individuals exacerbate this problem. Fees often begin accruing immediately upon arrest, including booking fees and other miscellaneous charges, regardless of a person's guilt or innocence. Throughout incarceration, costs continue to mount, as institutions charge for basic living necessities and require individuals to cover the expenses of their own confinement. Given that many people are already impoverished before arrest and that prison wages are extremely low, saving the hundreds of dollars required for initial court filing fees is an impossible task for most.

The denial of court access has significant negative consequences. Systemic abuses and dangerous conditions within correctional facilities can persist unchecked when individuals are prevented from filing lawsuits seeking redress. Furthermore, the public loses the opportunity to gain insight into the realities of prison life, hindering efforts to promote transparency and reform.

While Congress enacted the PLRA to reduce excessive and non-meritorious litigation, the practical effect of the three strikes rule has been to create an insurmountable obstacle for many incarcerated individuals. This leaves them without legal recourse, even when their important constitutional rights have been severely violated. Therefore, it is argued that the three strikes rule should be interpreted narrowly to prevent it from barring an ever-increasing scope of legitimate legal claims.

This case illustrates these concerns clearly. An individual, Mr. Jeremy Wells, suffered severe injuries from a beating by other prisoners after guards reportedly ignored his warnings about his safety. His subsequent lawsuit was dismissed by the district court, which counted his prior cases, dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, as "strikes." This decision did not consider the merits of his current or even past claims. Since Mr. Wells cannot afford the court fees, the district court's ruling on his three-strikes status effectively prevented him from pursuing his claims for serious injuries. This situation highlights how the current interpretation of the rule can unjustly deny access to justice based solely on financial inability.

ARGUMENT

The Costs of Incarceration Are High

The financial burden of incarceration begins early and continues throughout a person's time in the justice system. Before an individual even enters a correctional facility, various fees are often imposed, such as booking fees, public defender charges, and miscellaneous court fees used to subsidize state budgets or other unrelated expenses. Once incarcerated, individuals face additional costs, including "pay-to-stay" fees for room and board, charges for basic necessities like toiletries and medical care from private vendors, and expensive phone calls to family. Despite some federal caps on interstate call rates, many intrastate calls remain very costly, often requiring significant labor hours to afford. These cumulative fees create a substantial financial strain on incarcerated individuals and their families.

Incarcerated People Have Scant Access to Resources While Imprisoned

Most incarcerated individuals, estimated at 80%, are indigent. Many have little to no income in the years leading up to incarceration, and once imprisoned, wages are extraordinarily low, typically ranging from a few cents to less than a dollar per hour. This meager income makes it nearly impossible to cover daily living expenses, let alone save money. Consequently, individuals often rely on their families for financial support, but these families frequently face their own economic hardship, with incarceration often increasing a family's likelihood of poverty. The struggle to meet these costs means that many individuals leave prison burdened by debt, which can create significant barriers to successful reentry into society, potentially leading to re-incarceration for failure to pay.

Filing Fees Are Insurmountable for Most Incarcerated People

The PLRA requires all incarcerated individuals to pay court filing fees, though those granted "in forma pauperis" status may pay over time. However, the three strikes rule removes this option, demanding the full filing fee upfront. This lump sum cost, which can be $402 for an initial federal district court filing and $500 for an appeal, is unachievable for most incarcerated individuals. For instance, someone earning 40 cents an hour would need to work over 1,000 hours just to pay the initial filing fee. When additional litigation costs such as transcripts are included, the total can rise to nearly $2,000, requiring thousands of hours of labor over several years. For the vast majority, these fees are simply beyond their means, making litigation entirely unreachable solely due to poverty.

The Three Strikes Rule Bars Meritorious Claims

As a direct consequence of this financial barrier, serious constitutional violations and grave injustices may go unaddressed. For example, during the recent global health crisis, numerous lawsuits brought by incarcerated individuals protesting dire and unsanitary conditions, where infections were rampant and medical care inadequate, were dismissed based on the three strikes provision. Beyond health crises, claims involving severe beatings, assaults, and denials of essential medical treatment also frequently go unheard. This rule not only prevents individuals from obtaining personal relief but also hinders the creation of a public record regarding prison conditions. By denying incarcerated individuals the opportunity to present their claims, the three strikes rule ultimately obstructs public awareness and impedes efforts toward necessary institutional reform.

CONCLUSION

Due to the severe economic hardships faced by incarcerated individuals, the three strikes rule frequently operates to block even meritorious legal claims. In this specific case, the district court incorrectly determined that Mr. Wells's prior dismissals for failing to exhaust administrative remedies should be counted as strikes. This decision effectively barred him from suing because he could not afford the filing fee. This interpretation not only contradicts statutory language and established legal precedent but also improperly expands the scope of the three strikes rule, thereby preventing access to justice for many who are similarly impoverished. The rule's application in this manner demands a more limited construction to prevent it from unjustly denying legal recourse.

Statement of Issues and Summary of Argument

Access to justice should not depend on a person's financial status. However, many individuals in American jails and prisons are routinely denied access to courts because they lack money. The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) includes a "three strikes" provision (28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)) that requires incarcerated people to pay court filing fees in full and upfront if they have had three previous lawsuits dismissed. Most incarcerated individuals are poor and cannot afford these fees. This rule acts as a barrier, effectively preventing even valid legal claims from being heard simply because a person is indigent.

The financial struggles of incarcerated people begin immediately upon arrest. Various fees, such as booking fees and other miscellaneous costs, are often imposed regardless of whether the arrestee is ultimately found guilty. Throughout incarceration, expenses continue to mount as institutions charge for basic living costs and require individuals to cover their own confinement. Many people in jail and prison are already impoverished before arrest, and prison wages are exceptionally low. As a result, the vast majority have no hope of saving the hundreds of dollars needed for initial court filing fees, and the three strikes rule completely prevents these individuals from bringing lawsuits.

Denying access to courts has significant, far-reaching consequences. Without the ability to file lawsuits, systemic abuses and dire conditions within prisons can continue unaddressed. The public also loses the opportunity to learn about these conditions. While Congress intended the PLRA to curb excessive and frivolous litigation, in practice, the three strikes rule often completely prevents incarcerated individuals from seeking legal recourse for serious violations of their constitutional rights. Therefore, the rule should be interpreted narrowly to avoid blocking a wider range of legitimate legal actions.

This case clearly illustrates these problems. Jeremy Wells, the appellant, was severely beaten by other prisoners, sustaining serious injuries including a ruptured eardrum, burns to both eyes, a right-eye contusion, and a throat abrasion. Guards reportedly ignored Mr. Wells's prior warnings about his safety, and later mocked his injuries. When Mr. Wells filed a lawsuit, the district court quickly dismissed his claims, ruling that his previous cases, dismissed for failure to exhaust all available administrative remedies, counted as "strikes." This determination did not consider the validity of his current claims, nor the merits of his past suits, which were dismissed due to procedural issues rather than a lack of legal basis.

Mr. Wells cannot afford the court fees, so the court's "three strikes" ruling effectively prevented him from pursuing his case. The district court's decision that a dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies counts as a strike is legally incorrect. This ruling also inappropriately expands the scope of the three strikes provision, defining "strike" too broadly. Many incarcerated individuals face situations similar to Mr. Wells, where their ability to litigate is halted simply because they cannot afford court filing fees. Understanding their economic conditions highlights why the three strikes provision should be interpreted narrowly.

The Costs of Incarceration Are High

Being incarcerated is expensive. Over the past several decades, nearly every aspect of the criminal justice process has included charging fees.

Various costs are assessed even before a person enters prison. Booking fees, which are flat fees imposed upon arrest, have become common, often applied regardless of whether the person is ultimately convicted. Fees for public defender services are also routine, with many states implementing cost recovery measures, including upfront registration fees. States also impose miscellaneous "court fees" to subsidize various expenses, ranging from general state budget support to courthouse maintenance, or other purposes far removed from criminal prosecution.

Once incarcerated, individuals face additional costs. Many institutions charge for room and board through "pay-to-stay" policies, which can involve daily fees. Other facilities charge for basic necessities like meals, toilet paper, and medical care. These essential items often must be purchased from a private vendor through the prison commissary. While some may view commissary items as luxuries, they often include necessities like shower sandals, extra toilet paper, or over-the-counter remedies for chronic conditions.

Phone calls to loved ones represent another significant expense. Although the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has capped interstate phone call rates, many incarcerated people earn wages as low as 14 to 63 cents per hour, making even these capped rates substantial. Furthermore, most jail and prison calls are intrastate, meaning they are not regulated by the FCC and can be much more expensive. The national average cost for a 15-minute local call from jail can be significantly higher.

In summary, the journey from arrest through release is filled with fees. These costs begin accumulating before a person is even confined and continue daily throughout their incarceration.

Incarcerated People Have Scant Access to Resources While Imprisoned

Most incarcerated individuals are largely unable to meet the rising costs associated with the justice system. An estimated 80% of individuals in American correctional facilities are indigent. On average, people in prison had little to no income in the years leading up to their incarceration; a significant majority had very low annual earnings, meaning the typical person enters the system without a financial safety net to cover prison costs.

Prison wages are extraordinarily low. On average, people in prison earn between 14 and 63 cents per hour. In federal institutions, work assignments typically pay 12 to 40 cents per hour. The limited availability of decent wages is evident in the fact that incarcerated individuals may accept significant risks for marginally increased pay, such as fighting wildfires for very low daily or hourly rates.

For individuals with negligible assets before incarceration and who earn very little while incarcerated, the costs of incarceration are astronomical. For instance, paying for a single one-minute phone call might require an incarcerated person to work for one hour, given prevailing prison wages. Intrastate calls, which are unregulated and often pricier, demand even longer work hours for the same call. A daily per diem fee, even at typical rates, can exceed many prisoners' daily earnings. Other examples include the cost of a box of tampons requiring two weeks' wages in some facilities, or a phone card taking almost two weeks' work in others.

As a result, incarcerated people often must rely on their families for financial support. However, their families are frequently not in a position to provide much relief. The incarcerated population disproportionately comes from low-income, single-parent households, and the incarceration of a family member, particularly a father, can significantly increase a family's likelihood of living in poverty.

Therefore, most incarcerated individuals cannot meet the costs of daily prison life. A large majority of individuals leave prison in debt. This debt can lead to a cascade of debilitating consequences, hindering access to driver's licenses, restricting voting rights, and interfering with credit and child support payments. Perhaps most concerning, debt is a significant factor in re-incarceration, as failure to pay fines and fees can result in probation revocation or re-arrest. For many prisoners, the costs of incarceration represent an ongoing, overwhelming challenge where charges for basic needs far exceed their ability to pay, and accumulated arrears upon release severely limit their successful reintegration into society.

Filing Fees Are Insurmountable for Most Incarcerated People

Unsurprisingly, most incarcerated individuals find it impossible to pay court filing fees all at once. The PLRA mandates that all prisoners must pay court filing fees; those granted in forma pauperis status are allowed to pay the fee over time. However, the three strikes rule imposes an even greater burden by denying in forma pauperis status and requiring prisoners to pay the full filing fee upfront. This lump sum cost is simply unachievable for most incarcerated people.

In federal district courts, the initial filing fee is $402, which includes a base fee set by statute and a miscellaneous fee. An incarcerated person earning 40 cents per hour would need to work 1,005 hours to pay this initial fee. An individual earning 14 cents per hour, on the lower end of average prison wages, would have to work 2,871 hours, which is nearly an entire year of daily 8-hour shifts without any breaks or interruptions.

The filing fee for a federal appeal is even higher, at $500. Other litigation-related fees, such as for transcripts and copies of the record on appeal, can cost thousands of dollars. If a case were appealed and required $1,000 in additional costs, the total litigation expense would rise significantly. At 40 cents an hour, this would require 4,755 hours of labor; at 14 cents an hour, it would increase to 13,585 hours. This is clearly unattainable; even with a daily 8-hour work schedule every day of the year, paying this cost would take years, during which time the individual would still face initial court fees and daily prison living expenses.

Simply put, for most incarcerated people, filing fees are beyond their financial means. Once an incarcerated person accumulates three strikes and the PLRA requires the full filing fee upfront, litigation becomes entirely out of reach, solely due to their poverty.

The Three Strikes Rule Bars Meritorious Claims

As a result of this system, serious constitutional violations may go unheard simply because incarcerated litigants are too poor to sue.

For example, over the past year and a half, COVID-19 spread rapidly through American jails and prisons, with high infection rates and many deaths reported. Despite these dire conditions, numerous lawsuits filed by prisoners contesting these situations were blocked solely by the PLRA’s three strikes provision. This includes cases alleging unsanitary medication distribution, lack of masks or bleach, and inadequate screening.

Even apart from the global health crisis, the three strikes rule has allowed beatings, sexual assaults, and other dangerous living conditions to continue unchecked. Examples include cases dismissed despite allegations of rapes by guards, denial of cleaning supplies when sewage systems failed, beatings by guards, and denial of crucial medical treatment for severe pain.

Importantly, the impact of a meritorious lawsuit extends beyond providing relief to an individual; litigation also creates a public record. By denying incarcerated people the chance to present their claims, the three strikes rule also prevents the public from learning about conditions in America’s jails and prisons, thereby hindering efforts for reform.

Conclusion

Due to the severe economic circumstances faced by prisoners, the three strikes rule frequently prevents even valid legal claims from being heard. In the current case, the district court mistakenly concluded that Mr. Wells's previous dismissals for failure to exhaust administrative remedies should count as strikes, effectively barring his lawsuit since he could not afford the filing fee. The district court's decision contradicts statutory text and a relevant Supreme Court ruling. It also improperly broadens the scope of the three strikes rule, allowing it to dismiss too many legitimate claims.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

Many people in America's jails and prisons are unable to access the courts because they are poor. A rule known as the "three strikes" provision, which is part of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), requires incarcerated individuals to pay all court filing fees upfront if they have had three previous lawsuits dismissed. However, most incarcerated people are unable to afford these fees. This rule effectively stops them from bringing even valid legal claims.

A closer look at the financial situation of incarcerated individuals shows why this rule has such a strong impact. Fees begin immediately upon arrest, including booking fees, and continue throughout incarceration for basic living expenses and confinement costs. Many people are already poor before arrest, and wages earned in prison are extremely low. This makes it impossible for most to save the large sums needed for court filing fees. As a result, the "three strikes" rule completely blocks these individuals from going to court.

This denial of access to the courts has serious consequences. Without legal action, problems within the prison system, such as abuses and poor conditions, can continue without being addressed. The public also misses out on knowing what truly happens inside prisons.

Congress stated that the PLRA was meant to stop too many unnecessary lawsuits. However, in practice, the "three strikes" rule has become a barrier for many incarcerated individuals, leaving them with no way to address serious violations of their important constitutional rights. For this reason, the rule should be interpreted strictly to prevent it from blocking more and more lawsuits.

The case of Jeremy Wells highlights these concerns. Mr. Wells was severely beaten by other incarcerated individuals after guards ignored his warnings. When he tried to sue, the court dismissed his case because his previous cases were counted as "strikes" for not following proper procedures, even though those dismissals were not about the facts of his cases. Since Mr. Wells cannot afford the court fees, this decision effectively prevented him from pursuing his claims. The court's ruling, which considered a failure to complete administrative processes as a "strike," incorrectly expands the reach of this rule. The financial challenges faced by many incarcerated people show why this "three strikes" rule needs to be applied in a limited way.

ARGUMENT

I. The Costs of Incarceration Are High

Being in prison or jail is costly. Over recent decades, almost every part of the criminal justice system has started charging fees.

Various costs are added even before a person enters a facility. Booking fees, which are fixed charges made upon arrest often without considering whether the person is found guilty, are common. Fees for public defenders are also standard, with many states requiring payments, some even upfront.

States also charge various "court fees" to help pay for different expenses. These can range from supporting the state's general budget to maintaining court buildings or funding other unrelated purposes. For instance, some states allocate these fees to their general funds, while others use them to support judicial budgets or even provide luxuries for judges.

Once inside, incarcerated individuals face more costs. Many facilities use "pay-to-stay" policies, charging for room and board, sometimes hundreds of dollars per day. Other places charge for essential items like meals, toilet paper, and medical care.

Even without direct "pay-to-stay" fees, incarcerated individuals often must buy necessary items themselves. These items, such as clothing, hygiene products, and over-the-counter medicines, are typically sold through the prison store, called a commissary. People might think these are luxury items, but they are often basic necessities, like shower sandals for shared showers or extra toilet paper, or even medicines for chronic conditions. For example, incarcerated individuals in one state bought hundreds of thousands of bars of soap in a single year, highlighting these items are not luxuries.

Phone calls to family are another major cost. While the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has set limits on how much can be charged for calls between states, even those capped rates are expensive for incarcerated people who earn as little as 14 to 63 cents per hour. A single minute on the phone can cost almost an hour's wages.

Most phone calls made from jails and prisons are within the same state, meaning the FCC's rules do not apply to them. As a result, the cost of local calls is much higher. A 15-minute local call can average several dollars, and in some facilities, it can cost more than twenty dollars.

In summary, from the moment of arrest through release, individuals face a continuous stream of fees that accumulate daily throughout their incarceration.

II. Incarcerated People Have Scant Access to Resources While Imprisoned

Most incarcerated individuals are largely unable to pay these rising costs. An estimated 80% of them are considered poor.

On average, people in prison have very little to no income in the years before they are incarcerated. More than half earn less than $500 annually, meaning they enter the system without any savings to cover prison expenses.

Additionally, wages earned in prison are extremely low. On average, incarcerated people make between 14 and 63 cents per hour. Even for dangerous work like fighting wildfires, some earn only a few dollars a day or an hour.

For people with minimal savings before incarceration and extremely low wages while incarcerated, the costs mentioned earlier are immense. For example, many must work an hour to pay for just one minute of a phone call. A daily fee of $5 can be more than what many incarcerated individuals earn in an entire day. Buying basic items like tampons or a phone card can require weeks of wages.

As a result, incarcerated people often have to rely on their families for financial help. However, their families are often not in a position to provide much support. The incarcerated population is largely made up of individuals from low-income, single-parent households. A family's likelihood of living in poverty increases significantly when a father is incarcerated.

Ultimately, most incarcerated individuals cannot afford the costs of daily prison life. A large majority leave prison owing money. This debt can lead to severe problems, making it harder to get a driver's license, affecting voting rights, and interfering with getting credit or paying child support. This debt also significantly increases the chance of being re-incarcerated, as not paying fees can lead to probation being canceled or new arrests.

For most incarcerated people, paying these costs is a continuous and overwhelming struggle. The debts accumulated in prison often severely limit their ability to successfully re-enter society after release.

III. Filing Fees Are Insurmountable for Most Incarcerated People

Most incarcerated individuals find it impossible to pay court filing fees all at once. The PLRA requires all incarcerated people to pay these fees. While those who are granted "in forma pauperis" status (meaning they cannot afford to pay) are allowed to pay over time, the "three strikes" rule removes this option, demanding the full payment upfront. This large lump sum is simply not possible for most incarcerated individuals to afford.

For example, the initial filing fee in federal district courts is $402. An incarcerated person earning 40 cents an hour would need to work over 1,000 hours to pay this fee. If they earn only 14 cents an hour, it would take nearly an entire year of working eight-hour shifts every day, without breaks, to pay the same amount.

The filing fee for a federal appeal is even higher, at $500. Other costs related to a lawsuit, such as paying for official court documents, can add thousands of dollars. If a case went to appeal and required $1,000 in additional costs, the total would rise significantly. At 40 cents an hour, paying this would require thousands of hours of labor; at 14 cents an hour, it would take even longer. Such amounts are simply beyond reach, requiring years of work, during which time daily prison costs would still need to be covered.

In short, for most incarcerated individuals, filing fees are too expensive. Once someone has three "strikes" and the PLRA requires them to pay the full fee upfront, starting a lawsuit becomes completely impossible, simply because they are poor.

IV. The Three Strikes Rule Bars Meritorious Claims

As a result of this system, serious violations of constitutional rights may go unaddressed because incarcerated individuals are too poor to file a lawsuit.

For example, over the past year and a half, COVID-19 spread widely through America's jails and prisons. In some facilities, most incarcerated people were infected, leading to thousands of deaths.

However, when incarcerated individuals tried to sue about these dangerous conditions, many lawsuits were blocked solely because of the PLRA's "three strikes" rule. Such cases include those where individuals reported unsanitary conditions, lack of masks, or proximity to infected people, but their suits were still dismissed.

Beyond the global health crisis, the "three strikes" rule also means that severe issues like beatings, rapes, and other unsafe living conditions can continue without being challenged in court. Examples include cases where individuals alleged rapes by guards, severe unsanitary conditions, denial of crucial medical treatment, or threats of sexual assault, but their lawsuits were dismissed.

Importantly, a successful lawsuit does more than just help one person; it also creates a public record. By preventing incarcerated individuals from bringing their claims to court, the "three strikes" rule also keeps the public from learning about conditions in jails and prisons, which then hinders efforts to improve these facilities.

CONCLUSION

Because of the severe financial hardship faced by incarcerated individuals, the "three strikes" rule often prevents even valid legal claims from being heard. In the case of Mr. Wells, the lower court was mistaken in counting his past dismissed cases as "strikes" simply because he had not completed all administrative steps. This decision effectively barred him from suing because he could not afford the filing fee. Such a ruling goes against the law and expands the "three strikes" rule too broadly, impacting many other incarcerated people facing similar situations.

Issues and Main Argument

Many people in jails and prisons are stopped from using the courts. This happens only because they are poor. There is a rule called the "three strikes" rule. It says that people in prison who have had three past lawsuits dismissed must pay all court fees at once. But most people in prison do not have money. So, they cannot pay these fees. This rule stops poor prisoners from bringing their cases, even when their cases are important and fair.

Prisoners face very hard money problems. Fees often start as soon as a person is arrested. These can be for booking or other costs, even if the person is later found not guilty. While in prison, costs keep growing. People are charged for basic living needs and must pay for their own time there. Most people in prison were already poor before they were arrested. Wages inside prison are very low. So, most prisoners cannot save the hundreds of dollars needed to pay court fees. This "three strikes" rule completely stops these prisoners from going to court.

When people cannot go to court, serious problems in prisons can continue without anyone checking them. The public also loses the chance to learn what really goes on inside prisons.

The government made the "three strikes" rule to stop too many unimportant lawsuits. While this goal was good, the rule has become a big problem for many prisoners. It leaves them with no way to get help for serious violations of their basic rights. Because of this, the "three strikes" rule should be used in a very narrow way. This would stop it from blocking more and more lawsuits.

This case shows these problems clearly. A person named Mr. Jeremy Wells was badly beaten by other prisoners. He suffered serious injuries. Before the beating, guards did not listen to Mr. Wells when he warned them he was in danger. After he was beaten, they made fun of his injuries. But when Mr. Wells tried to sue, the court quickly stopped his case. The court said his past cases were dismissed because he did not follow all the rules, and these counted as "strikes." This decision had nothing to do with how serious his new case was. Mr. Wells cannot pay the court fees. So, the court's choice about his "three strikes" status stopped him from bringing his case. The court's decision was wrong and makes the "three strikes" rule too broad. Many prisoners face the same problem as Mr. Wells. Their right to go to court is taken away just because they cannot pay fees. Looking at how little money they have shows why this rule needs to be used carefully.

Main Discussion

The Costs of Being in Prison Are High

Being in prison costs a lot of money. Over many years, almost every part of the justice system has added fees for people. These fees often start before a person even enters prison. There are fees for booking, which are flat fees when someone is arrested. There are also fees for public defenders, who are lawyers for people who cannot afford one. Many states make people pay to use a public defender, even before the case starts.

States also charge other "court fees." These fees are used to pay for many things, such as the state's budget or building upkeep, not just for court costs. For example, some states use these fees to pay for schools or even judges' private chefs.

Once a person is in prison, they face more costs. Many prisons charge for room and board. These "pay-to-stay" fees can be a few dollars or much more each day. Some prisons charge for basic things like meals, toilet paper, and medical care. Even if there are no "pay-to-stay" fees, prisoners often must buy their own clothes, hygiene items, food, and medicine from the prison store. People might think these are extra items, but things like shower sandals or antacid pills are often needed and can only be bought there. Phone calls to family are also very expensive. While some rates have been lowered, a single minute can still cost a lot compared to what prisoners earn. For calls within the same state, costs can be much higher, sometimes over $20 for a 15-minute call. All these fees add up from the time of arrest through release.

People in Prison Have Very Little Money or Help

Most people in prison cannot pay these growing costs. About 8 out of 10 people in American prisons do not have money. Most people in prison had very little to no income in the years before they were put in prison. This means most people enter prison without savings to cover costs.

Also, wages for work in prison are very low. On average, people in prison earn between 14 and 63 cents per hour. In federal prisons, they earn 12 to 40 cents per hour. Because wages are so low, prisoners will take big risks for a little more money. For example, in California, prisoners fight wildfires for only $2 a day.

Since prisoners had little money before and earn very little now, the costs of prison life are huge. For example, a person earning 14 cents an hour would need to work for one hour to pay for just one minute of a phone call. A $5 daily fee for room and board is more than many prisoners earn in a whole day. Buying a box of tampons could cost a woman in prison two weeks of wages. Saving for a $10 phone card could take nearly two weeks for a person working in a Pennsylvania prison.

Because of this, people in prison often have to ask their families for help. But their families are also often poor. Many families become even poorer when a loved one goes to prison. Because of this, most people in prison cannot pay for daily prison life. About 80% to 85% of prisoners leave prison with debt.

This debt causes many problems. It can make it hard to get a driver's license, vote, get credit, or pay child support. The debt can also lead people back to prison if they cannot pay fines and fees, which can cause their probation to be canceled or lead to re-arrest. For most prisoners, the costs of prison life are a never-ending problem. The charges for basic needs are much higher than what they can earn. When they are released, the debt they built up makes it very hard for them to start a new life.

Court Fees Are Too High for Most Prisoners

Most people in prison find it impossible to pay court filing fees all at once. The "three strikes" rule makes people with three past dismissed cases pay the full fee right away. This large, one-time cost is simply not possible for most people in prison to pay.

In federal courts, the first filing fee is $402. A prisoner earning 40 cents an hour would have to work 1,005 hours to pay this fee. If they earn only 14 cents an hour, it would take 2,871 hours. This is almost a full year of working 8 hours every day, without breaks.

The fee to appeal a case to a higher federal court is even more, at $500. Other costs for a lawsuit, like copies of court papers, can be thousands of dollars. If a case cost $1,000 for copies, the total would be $1,902. At 40 cents an hour, this would mean 4,755 hours of work. At 14 cents an hour, it would be 13,585 hours. This is simply not possible. Even if a prisoner worked 8 hours every day of the year, these costs would take years to pay. During that time, they would still have to pay for daily prison living costs.

Simply put, most people in prison cannot afford to pay these court fees. When a prisoner gets three "strikes" and must pay the full fee at once, they can no longer bring their case to court. This happens only because they are poor.

The Three Strikes Rule Stops Fair Cases

Because of this system, serious violations of basic rights can go unheard just because prisoners are too poor to sue.

For example, over the last year and a half, the COVID-19 virus spread quickly through jails and prisons in America. In some places, 4 out of 5 prisoners got the virus. In others, almost everyone did. As of April 2021, at least 1 out of 3 prisoners in state prisons had the virus. At least 2,700 prisoners have died. But when prisoners tried to sue over these terrible conditions, many cases were stopped only because of the "three strikes" rule.

Even without a health crisis, the "three strikes" rule means that beatings, rapes, and other dangerous living conditions can continue without being checked. Courts have dismissed cases about guards raping prisoners, prisoners being beaten, and people not getting needed medical care.

It is important to know that a fair lawsuit does more than help one person. It also creates a public record. By stopping prisoners from bringing their cases, the "three strikes" rule also stops the public from learning about conditions in jails and prisons. This then stops efforts to make things better.

Conclusion

Because prisoners have such little money, the "three strikes" rule often stops even good cases from being heard. In this case, the court wrongly said that Mr. Wells's past cases, which were dismissed for not following rules, counted as "strikes." This stopped him from suing because he could not pay the fees. This decision is not correct and makes the "three strikes" rule too wide. It brings too many cases under a rule that stops people from going to court.