James Higgason, Jr. brings this claim in the amount of $2109.111 for the cost of photocopying four copies of his 476-page habeas corpus petition.

The trial court dismissed Higgason’s claim under Indiana’s Three Strikes Law, Indiana Code § 34-58-2-1 (West Supp. 2007), finding that Higgason was barred from bringing a claim because he had filed three previous frivolous suits and was not in immediate danger of serious bodily injury.2 Higgason appealed, arguing that the Three Strikes law violated the Open Courts Clause found in article 1, section 12 of the Indiana Constitution. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court and upheld the Three Strikes Law in an unpublished opinion. Higgason v. Dep’t of Corr., No. 46A04-0610-CV-582, 872 N.E.2d 215 (Ind.Ct.App. Aug. 7, 2007). Judge Sullivan concurred in part and dissented in part, concluding that the Three Strikes Law is unconstitutional, but that Higgason’s claim should still be dismissed as frivolous. Id. We grant transfer concurrent with this opinion.

For the reasons given in Smith v. Indiana Department of Correction, 883 N.E.2d 802 (Ind., 2008), also decided today, we agree with Higgason and Judge Sullivan that the Three Strikes Law violates the Open Courts Clause of the Indiana Constitution. Higgason’s claim may not be dismissed solely because of his earlier litigation.

Higgason claims he is entitled to money for photocopying costs because of a state-created right to gratuitous photocopies of legal pleadings. Specifically, Higgason cites Indiana Department of Correction policy 00-01-102, p. 6, § VII (9/1/2002 version).3 Courts generally have the power to review state agency actions pursuant to the Administrative Orders and Procedures Act. See Ind.Code §§ 4-21.5-1-1 to -7-9 (2004); Montgomery v. Ind. Dep’t of Corr., 794 N.E.2d 1124, 1126 *814(Ind.Ct.App. 2003). However, Indiana Code section 4-21.5-2-5(6) provides that AOPA does not apply to agency actions “related to an offender within the jurisdiction of the department of correction.” As Justice Rucker put it, it is now “settled law” that “enforcement of prison disciplinary sanctions are not subject to judicial review.” Israel v. Ind. Dep’t of Corr., 868 N.E.2d 1123, 1124 (Ind. 2007) (Rucker, J., concurring) (citing Blanch v. Ind. Dep’t of Corr., 829 N.E.2d 505, 510 (Ind. 2005)). Higgason’s claim for copying costs under a Department of Correction policy, like challenges to prison discipline, is a claim challenging agency action that is “related to an offender within the jurisdiction of the department of correction.” It is therefore, under settled law, “not a claim upon which relief may be granted” and so is dismissible under the Frivolous Claim Law. Ind.Code Ann. § 34-58-1-2 (West Supp. 2007).4 We note that Higgason maintains the right to file a written grievance with the Department of Correction concerning the alleged violations of policy. 210 Ind. Admin. Code 3 — 1—15(h) (2004); Ind.Code § 11-11-1-2 (2004).

Conclusion

The order dismissing Higgason’s claim under the Three Strikes Law is reversed. This case is remanded to the trial court with instructions to dismiss the claim under the Frivolous Claim Law.

concurs in result believing that Ind.Code § 34-58-2-1 is constitutional as applied to Higgason but that the claim is subject to dismissal under Ind. Code § 34-58-1-2 in any event.