Caraffa v. Arizona, State of et al

Filing 5

ORDER: Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2 ) is denied. Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1 ) and this action are dismissed without prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). If Plaintiff wishes to reassert the se claims in the future, she must prepay the entire $400.00 filing and administrative fees when she files her action. The Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly and close this case. (See Order for full details.) Signed by Judge Michael T Liburdi on 11/19/20.

Download PDF
1 WO MDR 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Alfred E. Caraffa, 10 No. CV 20-02158-PHX-MTL (ESW) Plaintiff, 11 v. 12 State of Arizona, et al., ORDER 13 Defendants. 14 15 On November 9, 2020, Plaintiff Alfred E. Caraffa,1 who is confined in a Maricopa 16 County Jail, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint (Doc. 1) and an Application to Proceed In 17 Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the Court will deny the 18 Application to Proceed and will dismiss the Complaint and this action without prejudice. 19 I. 20 21 Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) A prisoner may not bring a civil action or appeal a civil judgment in forma pauperis (“IFP”) 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. 22 23 24 25 26 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 27 28 1 Plaintiff is housed in a male facility but uses feminine pronouns to refer to herself. The Court will do the same. 1 “[Section] 1915(g) should be used to deny a prisoner’s IFP status only when, after 2 careful evaluation of the order dismissing an action, and other relevant information, the 3 district court determines that the action was dismissed because it was frivolous, malicious 4 or failed to state a claim.” Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005). “In 5 some instances, the district court docket records may be sufficient to show that a prior 6 dismissal satisfies at least one of the criteria under § 1915(g) and therefore counts as a 7 strike.” Id. at 1120. At least three of Plaintiff’s prior actions qualify as “strikes” under § 1915(g): 8 (1) Caraffa v. Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department, CV 2000013-PHX-MTL (ESW) (Mar. 3, 2020 Order and Judgment dismissing Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim); (2) Caraffa v. Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, CV 20-00227PHX-MTL (ESW) (Mar. 30, 2020 Order and Judgment dismissing Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim); (3) 9 Caraffa v. CHS, CV 20-00256-PHX-MTL (ESW) (Feb. 10, 2020 Order dismissing Complaint for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend, and Apr. 13, 2020 Judgment for failure to file amended complaint). 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Therefore, Plaintiff may not bring a civil action without complete prepayment of the 19 $350.00 filing fee and $50.00 administrative fee unless she is in imminent danger of serious 20 physical injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 21 II. Imminent Danger 22 To meet the “imminent danger” requirement, the “threat or prison condition [must 23 be] real and proximate,” Ciarpaglini v. Saini, 352 F.3d 328, 330 (7th Cir. 2003) (quoting 24 Lewis v. Sullivan, 279 F.3d 526, 531 (7th Cir. 2002)), and the allegations must be “specific 25 or credible.” Kinnell v. Graves, 265 F.3d 1125, 1128 (10th Cir. 2001). “[T]he exception 26 applies if the complaint makes a plausible allegation that the prisoner faced ‘imminent 27 danger of serious physical injury’ at the time of filing.” Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 28 1047, 1055 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting § 1915(g)). Moreover, although a court considering a -2- 1 motion to proceed in forma pauperis, “should not attempt to evaluate the seriousness of a 2 plaintiff’s claims[, . . . ] it has never been the rule that courts must blindly accept a 3 prisoner’s allegations of imminent danger.” Taylor v. Watkins, 623 F.3d 483, 485 (7th Cir. 4 2010). 5 Plaintiff’s allegations in her six-count Complaint do not plausibly suggest she is in 6 imminent danger of serious physical injury. 7 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and will dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint and this 8 action, without prejudice, pursuant to § 1915(g). If Plaintiff wants to reassert these claims 9 in the future, she must prepay the entire $400.00 filing and administrative fees when she 10 files her action. 11 Thus, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s IT IS ORDERED: 12 (1) Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2) is denied. 13 (2) Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) and this action are dismissed without 14 prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). If Plaintiff wishes to reassert these claims in 15 the future, she must prepay the entire $400.00 filing and administrative fees when she files 16 her action. 17 (3) 18 Dated this 19th day of November, 2020. The Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?