Ian LaMonte Cormier v. Jacqueline Lee Cooper et al

Filing 4

ORDER TO PAY THE FILING FEE OR SHOW CAUSE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 1915(G) by Magistrate Judge Alexander F. MacKinnon. IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that, on or before October 15, 2020, plaintiff shall pay the full filing fees in this action, or he shall show cause in writing why he should not be denied leave to proceed IFP and why this action should not be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). (See document for details.) (es)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
EASTERN DIVISION

10
11
12

IAN LaMONTE CORMIER,

13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,
v.
JACQUELINE LEE COOPER, et al.,

Case No. 5:20-cv-01722-SVW (AFM)
ORDER TO PAY THE FILING FEE
OR SHOW CAUSE PURSUANT TO
28 U.S.C. §1915(G)

Defendants.

17
18

Plaintiff, a prisoner who is presently detained at the Robert Presley Detention

19

Center (“RPDC”), in Riverside, California, filed a pro se civil rights action pursuant

20

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on August 25, 2020. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff did not prepay the

21

filing fees. Instead, he filed a Request to Proceed Without Prepayment of Filing Fees

22

or in forma pauperis (“IFP Request”). (See ECF No. 2.)

23

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A, the Court has screened

24

the Complaint to determine whether plaintiff’s action is frivolous or malicious, fails

25

to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a

26

defendant who is immune from such relief. Section 1915A requires the Court to

27

screen any “complaint in a civil action” if, at the time the plaintiff files the complaint,

28

he or she is a prisoner seeking “redress from a governmental entity or officer.” See

1

Olivas v. Nev. ex rel. Dep’t of Corr., 856 F.3d 1281, 1283-84 (9th Cir. 2017). 1

2

A review of past civil actions filed by plaintiff in the federal district courts of

3

California and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reflects that plaintiff is subject to

4

the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §1915(g). Pursuant to §1915(g), a prisoner may not

5

“bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding” without

6

prepayment of the filing fees “if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while

7

incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the

8

United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails

9

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under

10

imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. §1915(g). Such dismissal is

11

deemed a “strike.”

12

The Ninth Circuit has held that the phrase “fails to state a claim on which relief

13

may be granted” as used in §1915(g), parallels the language of Fed. R. Civ. P.

14

12(b)(6) and carries the same interpretation; that the word “frivolous” refers to a case

15

that is “of little weight or importance: having no basis in law or fact”; and the word

16

“malicious” refers to a case “filed with the ‘intention or desire to harm another.’” See

17

Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005) (explaining the terms used in

18

§1915(g)). In addition, the Ninth Circuit has held that the prior denial of IFP status

19

on the basis of frivolity or failure to state a claim constitutes a strike for purposes of

20

§1915(g). See O’Neal v. Price, 531 F.3d 1146, 1153-54 (9th Cir. 2008) (also stating

21

that a dismissal without prejudice may count as a strike). Additionally, appellate

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The Ninth Circuit has held that, pursuant to the language of the statute and other relevant
definitions of “prisoner,” “a court may screen a complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915A only if,
at the time the plaintiff files the complaint, he is ‘incarcerated or detained in any facility [because
he] is accused of, convicted of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal
law or the terms and conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program.’”
Olivas, 856 F.3d at 1284 (alteration in original); Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1139-40 (9th Cir.
2000). Plaintiff entered a prison number on his Complaint, and he filed an IFP Request stating that
he is a “prisoner-plaintiff” who presently is housed at the RPDC. (ECF No. 1 at 1; ECF No. 2 at 1,
4.) It appears to the Court that plaintiff was a “prisoner” for purposes of §1915A and §1915(g) at
the time that he filed this action.
2

1

affirmances do not count as strikes when the appeal affirms the decision of the district

2

court, but an appeal of a dismissal will count as a separate strike if the appellate court

3

“expressly states that the appeal itself was frivolous, malicious or failed to state a

4

claim.” El-Shaddai v. Zamora, 833 F.3d 1036, 1045-46 (9th Cir. 2016).

5

Once plaintiff has accumulated three strikes, he is prohibited from pursuing

6

any subsequent civil action without prepayment of the filing fees, unless he makes a

7

showing that he was “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” based on

8

the circumstances “at the time the complaint was filed, not at some earlier or later

9

time.” Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1052-53 (9th Cir. 2007); 28 U.S.C.

10

§ 1915(g). Further, “the prisoner bears the ultimate burden of persuading the court

11

that § 1915(g) does not preclude IFP status.” Richey v. Dahne, 807 F.3d 1202, 1206

12

(9th Cir. 2015).

13

In light of the foregoing standards, the Court takes judicial notice of the

14

following prior civil actions filed by plaintiff in the District Courts of California or

15

in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal that qualify as strikes for purposes of §1915(g).

16

See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2), (c)(1):

17

(1) Cormier v. Liggins, Case No. CV 01-00364-K (LSP), in the Southern

18

District of California, in which the case was dismissed on May 8, 2001, for

19

failure to state a claim. (No. 01-00364, ECF No. 2 at 4-7; No. 3.) The

20

district court also found in Liggins that plaintiff already had three prior

21

strikes within the meaning of §1915(g). (No. 01-00364, ECF No. 2 at 4.)

22

On Appeal, in Case No. 01-55857, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district

23

court’s dismissal in Liggins. (No. 01-00364, ECF Nos. 15-16.) The

24

Liggins case, as well as the three earlier cases cited in that case (see below),

25

all count as separate strikes, constituting four prior strikes.

26

a. Cormier v. People of the State of California, Case No. CV 00-00249-

27

L (RBB), in the Southern District of California, in which the case

28

was dismissed on March 21, 2000, for failure to state a claim and as
3

1

barred by Heck. The District Court indicated the dismissal may

2

count as a strike. (No. 00-00249, ECF No. 7 at 10-11, No. 8.) The

3

District Court’s dismissal was affirmed on appeal. (No. 00-00249,

4

ECF No. 18.)

5

b. Cormier v. Manny, Case No. CV 00-00025-W (CGA), in the

6

Southern District of California, in which the case was dismissed on

7

May 1, 2000, for failure to state a claim. The District Court indicated

8

the dismissal may count as a strike. (No. 00-00025, ECF No. 16.)

9

c. Cormier v. California, Case No. CV 00-00004-L (RBB), in the

10

Southern District of California, in which the case was dismissed on

11

May 11, 2000, for failure to state a claim and as barred by Heck. (No.

12

00-00004, ECF No. 14 at 7-8, No. 15.)

13

(2) Cormier v. Suter, Case No. EDCV 11-00801-UA (MLG), in the Central

14

District of California, in which plaintiff’s request to proceed IFP was

15

denied and the case was dismissed as frivolous on June 3, 2011. (No. 11-

16

00801, ECF No. 2.) In addition, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district

17

court’s dismissal and found that plaintiff’s appeal was frivolous. (No. 11-

18

00801, ECF Nos. 9, 12.)

19

(3) Cormier v. Siegler, Case No. CV 11-04907-ABC (MLG), in the Central

20

District of California, in which, on July 22, 2011, plaintiff’s request to

21

proceed IFP was denied as frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a

22

claim, and the district judge indicated the dismissal may count as a strike.

23

(No. 11-04907, ECF No. 4 at 1). On Appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed

24

the district court and found that the appeal was frivolous. (See No. 11-

25

04907, ECF Nos. 10, 16; 530 Fed. Appx. 624 (9th Cir. 2013).)

26

(4) Cormier v. Comey, Case No. 20-55320, in the Ninth Circuit, in which

27

plaintiff’s request to proceed IFP was denied and the appeal was dismissed

28

on August 21, 2020, “as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).”
4

1

(See Case No. EDCV 19-01198-SVW (AFM), ECF Nos. 26, 29, 31.)

2

Accordingly, because plaintiff had already accumulated more than three

3

strikes before he initiated this action, plaintiff is precluded from proceeding IFP

4

herein unless he can show that, at the time he initiated this action, he was “under

5

imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. §1915(g). The availability

6

of the “imminent danger” exception “turns on the conditions a prisoner faced at the

7

time the complaint was filed, not at some earlier or later time.” See Andrews, 493

8

F.3d at 1053. Here, plaintiff was detained at the RPDC at the relevant time, but

9

plaintiff does not name as defendants any official at the RPDC. Nor does the

10

Complaint in this action raise allegations concerning the conditions that plaintiff

11

faced at the RPDC at the time that he filed the Complaint. Accordingly, nothing in

12

the factual allegations in the Complaint raises a reasonable inference that plaintiff

13

faced “imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time that he initiated this

14

action. 28 U.S.C. §1915(g). The Court, however, must allow a prisoner the

15

opportunity to be heard on the matter before denying a request to proceed IFP or

16

dismissing an action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(g).

17

IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that, on or before October 15, 2020, plaintiff

18

shall pay the full filing fees in this action, or he shall show cause in writing why he

19

should not be denied leave to proceed IFP and why this action should not be

20

dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(g).

21
22
23

Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this Order will be deemed by the Court as
plaintiff’s consent to the dismissal of this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25

DATED: 9/10/2020

26
27
28

____________________________________
ALEXANDER F. MacKINNON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
5