At page 920 Determining applicability of plra to mandamus petitions16 citing cases“the nature of the underlying action . . . determines the applicability of 1915(g).”
- Bessent, No. 5:26-cv-00043 (N.D. Fla. Feb. 13, 2026). ([T]he nature of the underlying action . . . determine[s] the applicability of [§ 1915(g)].)
- Gomez Barco v. Witte, 65 F.4th 782 (5th Cir. 2023).published(habeas proceedings, though 5 technically civil, are in reality hybrid cases whose nature is not adequately captured by the phrase ‘civil action’)
- Timothy Dewayne Littlejohn v. Dir., Fed. Bureau of Investigation, No. 21-13542, 2023 WL 2300945 (11th Cir. Mar. 1, 2023).unpublished([T]he nature of the underlying action . . . determine[s] the applicability of [§ 1915(g)].)
- James L. Padgett v. FBI Dir. or/& FBI Gen. Couns., No. 2:25-cv-01042 (N.D. Ala. Sept. 28, 2026).Littlejohn, 2023 WL 2300945 , at *2 (citing In re Crittenden, 143 F.3d 919, 920 (5th Cir. 1998)) (“[T]he nature of the underlying action . . . determine[s] the applicability of [§ 1915(g)].”); Martin v. United States, 96 F.3d 853, 854 (7th…
- Adele, No. 3:24-cv-00574 (S.D. Miss. Nov. 25, 2025).In re Crittenden, 143 F.3d 919, 920 (5th Cir. 1998); see also In re Stone, 118 F.3d 1032, 1034 (5th Cir. 1997). includes all religious sacraments and rites.
- Oliver v. 241st Dist. Court, No. 3:24-cv-01751 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 21, 2024).In re Crittenden, 143 F.3d 919, 920 (5th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (quoting In re Stone, 118 F.3d 1032, 1033 (5th Cir. 1997)); see, e.g., In re Jacobs, 213 F.3d 289, 289 (5th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (“The nature of the underlying action dete…
- Rochester v. GT Fin., No. 3:22-cv-01685 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 19, 2022).(holding that if the underlying action is civil in nature, a mandamus action is governed by the three-strike provision)
- Keelen v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation, 78 F. App'x 389 (5th Cir. 2003).unpublishedAdepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996); In re Crittenden, 143 F.3d 919, 920 (5th Cir.1998).
- Bello, No. 3:25-cv-03392 (N.D. Tex. June 15, 2026).See In re Crittenden, 143 F.3d 919, 920 (5th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (holding that where the underlying action is civil in nature, a mandamus action is governed by the PLRA and the three-strike provision).
- Luevano v. Med. Offices Clerk of Court shall not accept any future civil actions from Luevano-See Order D.E.5, No. 6:21-cv-00023 (S.D. Tex. June 14, 2021).(holding that, where the underlying action is civil in nature, a mandamus action is governed by the PLRA and the three-strike provision)
Show 6 more citing cases
- Daker v. Head, No. 6:14-cv-00047 (S.D. Ga. Sept. 24, 2019).(persuasive authority)
- Brown v. Levy, 73 A.3d 514 (Pa. 2013).publishedCompare Madden, at 78 (“It is the nature of the document, rather than the label attached by the litigant, that controls.”), with id., at 77 (“[Wjhere the underlying litigation is criminal, or otherwise of the type that Congress did not int…
- In re Jacobs, 213 F.3d 289 (5th Cir. 2000).publishedSee In re Critten-den, 143 F.3d 919, 920 (5th Cir.1998).
- Hyder v. Ivey, No. 4:23-cv-03090 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 7, 2023).Generally, the PLRA fee provisions “apply to mandamus actions that seek relief analogous to civil complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , but not to writs directed at judges conducting criminal trials.” Santee, 115 F.3d at 357 (the PLRA fee pr…
- Johnson v. U.S. Postal Serv., No. 4:23-cv-02060 (S.D. Tex. June 9, 2023).Generally, the § 1915(b) fee provisions “apply to mandamus actions that seek relief analogous to civil complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , but not to writs directed at judges conducting criminal trials.” Santee, 115 F.3d at 357 (finding th…
- Yoo v. FBI Nics, No. 4:20-cv-00665 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 20, 2021).See generally See In re Jacobs, 213 F.3d 289 , 290 n.1 (5th Cir. 2000) (“The nature of the underling action determines whether the fee requirements of the PLRA are to apply in a mandamus case”) (citing In re Stone, 118 F.3d 1032, 1033 (5th…
Other citing cases
- In re Kissi, 652 F.3d 39 (D.C. Cir. 2011).published
- West v. Blair, No. 00-20615, 2001 WL 563818 (5th Cir. May 16, 2001).unpublished
Norman Crittenden, a Texas state prisoner, petitions .this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to withdraw its order of December 16, 1997, denying Crit-tenden’s request to proceed in forma pau-poris in his appeal of the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights action.
In In re Stone, 118 F.3d 1032 (5th Cir.1997), this Court addressed the applicability of the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s (PLRA) amendments to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 with regard to a petition for a writ of mandamus prohibiting a district judge from improperly influencing an administrative review of the calculation of Stone’s sentence. Because the plain language of the amendments to § 1915 imposing new filing burdens only expressly encompasses “civil actions” or “appeals” of judgments in civil actions or proceedings, we had to decide whether a writ of mandamus could be characterized as either a “civil action” or an “appeal” of a civil action. Stone, 118 F.3d at 1033-34. We concluded that a writ of mandamus “is not an independent civil action, but may be considered a type of appeal.” Id. at 1034. Reaching this conclusion, however, did not end our inquiry as the PLRA only applies to appeals of “civil actions.” Id. As such, we reasoned that the nature of the underlying action would determine the applicability of the PLRA. Because the petition for a writ of mandamus in Stone arose out of a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition for post-conviction relief, the fee payment requirements of the PLRA did not apply. Id. See United States v. Cole, 101 F.3d 1076, 1077 (5th Cir.1996) (holding the PLRA does not apply to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings because habeas proceedings, though technically civil, are in reality hybrid cases whose nature is not adequately captured by the phrase “civil action”).
The instant case presents the issue of whether the “three strikes rule” of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) prevents Crittenden from filing a petition for a writ of mandamus in this Court without first paying the applicable filing fees when his petition arises from an underlying civil rights action, indisputably a “civil action.” [1] We conclude that it does. Accord In re Washington, 122 F.3d 1345 (10th Cir.1997); Martin v. United States, 96 F.3d 853, 854 (7th Cir.1996); In re Nagy, 89 F.3d 115, 117 (2nd Cir.1996). As such, Crittenden may not file a petition for a writ of 'mandamus with respect to a civil matter in this Court without prepaying the filing fee unless his filings claim that he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Crittenden’s petition for a writ of mandamus is DISMISSED.
. Section 1915(g) ofTitle 28 provides:
In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. Crittenden has been placed on this Court’s "three strikes" list as he has had at least three suits filed in the federal courts dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.