Hale-El v. Ring: Tenth Circuit Clarifies Timing of PLRA “Strikes” and Heightens Pleading Scrutiny for Prisoner Appeals

1. Introduction

In Hale-El v. Ring, Nos. 25-1044 & 25-1045 (10th Cir. 2025), the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit disposed of two consolidated pro se prisoner appeals stemming from the dismissal of separate 42 U.S.C. § 1983 actions. Both suits were filed by Colorado state inmate Colby Jerome Hale-El against state prison officials, public defenders, and other actors. The district court dismissed the complaints as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal.

On review, a Tenth Circuit panel (Judges Tymkovich, Baldock, and Federico) affirmed, again labelling the appeals frivolous, denying IFP, and—critically—counting the dismissals as “strikes” under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). In doing so, the court articulated when a strike accrues in relation to filing a notice of appeal and offered extensive commentary on insufficient pleadings, Rule 8, civil conspiracy standards, and access-to-courts doctrine.

2. Summary of the Judgment

Appeal 25-1044: Complaint alleged due-process and First Amendment violations arising from Hale-El’s temporary transfer to county custody. Affirmed dismissal as frivolous because allegations were conclusory and unsupported by law; transfer decisions are generally administrative.
Appeal 25-1045: Five-count complaint claimed racial discrimination, conspiracy, denial of due process, impeded litigation, and denial of access to courts. All were deemed conclusory, factually unsupported, or facially defective under controlling precedent.
IFP Motions: Denied. The court reiterated that an appeal lacking a non-frivolous legal point cannot be taken in “good faith.”
PLRA Strike: The panel held that dismissal of the appeals as frivolous constitutes an additional strike even though Hale-El’s notices of appeal preceded prior strike accrual, thereby clarifying timing doctrine under § 1915(g).

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) – Provided the doctrinal definition of “frivolous” for § 1915 purposes (“legal points not arguable on their merits”). The Tenth Circuit applied this to both complaints.
Brooks v. Raemisch, 717 F. App’x 766 (10th Cir. 2017) – Established review standards for § 1915(e)(2)(B) dismissals; cited to explain liberal construction for pro se litigants but refusal to craft arguments.
Randle v. Romero, 610 F.2d 702 (10th Cir. 1979) & Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215 (1976) – Stood for the principle that inmate transfers generally create no protected liberty interest absent state-created right, undermining Hale-El’s due-process theory.
Savant Homes, Inc. v. Collins, 809 F.3d 1133 (10th Cir. 2016) & Nelson v. Elway, 908 P.2d 102 (Colo. 1995) – Offered the five-part civil-conspiracy test, failure of which doomed Hale-El’s conspiracy allegations.
Hampton v. Dillard Dep’t Stores, 247 F.3d 1091 (10th Cir. 2001) – Set forth prima facie elements for § 1981 discrimination claims; court noted plaintiff pled none.
Peterson v. Shanks, 149 F.3d 1140 (10th Cir. 1998) & Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996) – Clarified “actual injury” requirement for access-to-courts claims; plaintiff failed to demonstrate prejudice.
Strope v. Cummings, 653 F.3d 1271 (10th Cir. 2011) – Defined consequences of accumulating three strikes; panel extended its logic.

3.2 Legal Reasoning of the Court

The court proceeded count-by-count, first evaluating under the abuse-of-discretion or de novo standard (depending on whether a purely legal question was implicated). It anchored dismissal on three inter-related bases:

Rule 8 Insufficiency: Both complaints were “conclusory, vague, and rambling,” failing to plead specific facts or show plausible entitlement to relief (Twombly/Iqbal principles incorporated).
Substantive Defects: Even if facts were accepted, alleged conduct (e.g., inmate transfer, appointment of public defenders) did not constitute constitutional violations under established precedent.
Frivolousness under § 1915(e)(2)(B): Because claims had no arguable legal foundation, appeals could not be taken in good faith, warranting dismissal and denial of IFP status.

With respect to the PLRA, the panel clarified that a strike attaches upon disposition (not merely filing) of an appeal if the court finds the appeal frivolous. Thus, even though Hale-El’s notice preceded his third strike, the present ruling created an additional strike, pushing him beyond the three-strike bar.

3.3 Potential Impact on Future Litigation

PLRA Timing Clarification: The decision reinforces that the moment of strike accrual is the dismissal order, not the appeal’s initiation, closing arguments some inmates have made that earlier notices escape strike calculus.
Heightened Pro Se Scrutiny: By prominently invoking Rule 8 and emphasizing fact-specific pleading, the panel signals continued intolerance for shotgun complaints in § 1983 prisoner litigation.
Transfer-Related Claims: The court’s reaffirmation that routine prison transfers rarely raise due-process concerns will likely deter similar filings absent state-law liberty interests.
Conspiracy Allegations: Detailed restatement of conspiracy pleading elements buttresses district courts’ authority to summarily dismiss bare-bones conspiracy claims.
Access-to-Courts Doctrine: Re-emphasis on “actual injury” confirms that missing property claims, mail tampering, or phone restrictions do not automatically translate into constitutional violations.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

In Forma Pauperis (IFP): Allows indigent litigants to waive filing fees. Courts must screen IFP actions; frivolous or meritless ones can be dismissed at any stage.
Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) “Strike”: Under § 1915(g) a prisoner incurs a strike whenever a court dismisses a suit or appeal as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim. Three strikes bar future IFP filings (“three-strikes rule”).
Frivolous Appeal: One that lacks any arguable legal basis. The court need not exhaustively analyze merits once frivolousness is determined.
Civil Rights Conspiracy (§§ 1985(2)& (3)): Requires at least two actors who, motivated by discriminatory animus, agree to deprive another of protected rights and commit an overt act causing injury.
Access-to-Courts Claim: An inmate must show official actions hindered the pursuit of a non-frivolous legal claim, causing actual prejudice (e.g., missed deadline, loss of meritorious case).

5. Conclusion

Hale-El v. Ring adds persuasive authority within the Tenth Circuit on two fronts: (1) the precise moment a PLRA strike is counted for frivolous appeals, and (2) the strict pleading burden facing pro se prisoners asserting complex constitutional claims. The decision underscores that conclusory allegations—no matter how numerous—cannot substitute for concrete facts linking specific defendants to specific constitutional violations. For future litigants, the case serves both as a cautionary tale on the consequences of repetitive meritless filings and as guidance on the minimum factual and legal groundwork required to survive preliminary screening in civil-rights litigation.