UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MICHAEL MEGGINSON, Plaintiff, ORDER – against – 23-cv-4170 (ER); 23-cv-6798 (ER) NYC DOC COMMISSIONER MOLINA, et al., Defendants.

RAMOS, D.J.: On August 3, 2023, the City of New York filed a letter indicating that, as part of its review of plaintiff Megginson’s allegations in this case, it discovered that he has previously proceeded in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in at least three actions in the Southern District of New York. Doc. 11 at 2. According to the City, the claims in those cases were dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Id. Accordingly, pursuant to

(g), also known as the “three strikes rule,” the City contends that Megginson should be prohibited from proceeding IFP in this action.

at 1–2. In relevant part,

(g), which was enacted as part of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), states as follows: In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action . . . under this section . . . if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action . . . that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

(g). In other words, the statute indicates that Megginson may not proceed in forma pauperis if his prior three actions were dismissed pursuant to any of the listed grounds. See Megginson v. City of New York et al., 18-cv-4205 (PG), Doc. 23; Megginson v. Chief of Department Stukes, et al., 21-cv-10689 (LTS), Doc. 6; Megginson v. Chief Stukes, et al., 21-cv-10690 (LTS), Doc. 6. The Court declines to revoke Megginson’s IFP status. The dismissal in Megginson vy. City of New York, et al., 18-cv-4205, was for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. See No. 18-cv-4205, Doc. 23. Courts in this Circuit have read the Second Circuit’s opinion in Escalera v. Samaritan Village,

, 381-82 (2d Cir. 2019), as holding that “dismissal of an action may not count as a strike for any reasons other than those specifically enumerated in § 1915(g),” Feelings v. Dallis, No. 18-cv-5893 (LDH) (CLP),

, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2020), and dismissal for failure to exhaust is not an enumerated ground,

(g).

It is SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 13, 2023 gle, (/ . New York, New York % ~ EDGARDORAMOS,U.S.DJ.