[PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 20-12605 ____________________

HAMZA MALDONADO, JAMES HILL, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus BAKER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, SCOTTY RHODEN, EVELYN BLUE, Captain, JAMES MESSER,

Defendants-Appellees. USCA11 Case: 20-12605 Date Filed: 01/25/2022 Page: 2 of 16

2 Opinion of the Court 20-12605

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 3:20-cv-00193-HLA-PDB ____________________

Before NEWSOM, BRANCH, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges. LAGOA, Circuit Judge: Hamza Maldonado and James Hill filed a complaint against the Defendants in Florida state court, asserting violations of their federal and state constitutional rights to the free exercise of their religion. After Maldonado and Hill applied for and were granted in forma pauperis status by the state court, the Defendants—the Baker County Sheriff’s Office and Scotty Rhoden, Evelyn Blue, and James Messer, three employees of that office—removed the case to federal court and paid the requisite federal filing fee required under 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). After removal, Maldonado and Hill did not seek in forma pauperis status in federal court. The district court subsequently dismissed Maldonado’s claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)—the three-strikes provision of the Prison Litigation Re- form Act (“PLRA”)—and dismissed Hill’s claims for failure to ex- haust administrative remedies. USCA11 Case: 20-12605 Date Filed: 01/25/2022 Page: 3 of 16

20-12605 Opinion of the Court 3

As to Maldonado, this appeal requires us to determine whether a case commenced in state court by a prisoner and re- moved by a defendant to federal court—with the defendant paying the filing fee after removal—is subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). We hold that it is not. And as to Hill, we hold that the district court erred in dis- missing his claims for failure to exhaust his administrative reme- dies. We therefore reverse the district court’s dismissal of Maldo- nado and Hill’s claims. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Both Maldonado and Hill were prisoners detained in the Baker County Detention Center when they filed their pro se 1 pris- oner civil rights action in Florida state court. Maldonado and Hill allege that the Defendants violated their federal and state constitu- tional rights to the free exercise of their Muslim faith by preventing them from attending Jummah prayer services. 2 In state court, Mal- donado and Hill both filed applications to proceed in forma pau- peris, which the state court granted.

1 Although Maldonado and Hill sought appointment of counsel on multiple occasions, they proceeded pro se in the district court. They subsequently ob- tained pro bono counsel for this appeal. We thank Mr. Amir H. Ali for accept- ing this case and for his thoughtful presentation of the issues raised on appeal. 2Jummah is “a weekly Muslim congregational service” that is “commanded by the Koran and must be held every Friday after the sun reaches its zenith.” O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 345 (1987); see also Greenhill v. USCA11 Case: 20-12605 Date Filed: 01/25/2022 Page: 4 of 16

4 Opinion of the Court 20-12605

Maldonado is a frequent pro se prisoner litigant. At the time this case was being considered by the district court, Maldonado had nine different civil actions pending against various employees