Moten v. Adams et al

Filing 84

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Grant Defendant Gonzales' 77 MOTION to Revoke Plaintiff's In Forma Pauperis Status, referred to Judge Ishii, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 6/28/2012. Objections to F&R Due Within Fourteen Days. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

JESSE T. MOTEN,
Plaintiff,

10

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO
GRANT DEFENDANT GONZALES’
MOTION TO REVOKE PLAINTIFF’S IN
FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS

v.

11
12

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-924-AWI-MJS (PC)

DARREL G. ADAMS, et al.
(ECF No. 77)
Defendants.

13

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN
DAYS

14
/
15
16
17
18

I.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Jesse T. Moten (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

19

Plaintiff initiated this action on June 27, 2007. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff filed a Second

20

Amended Complaint on March 11, 2011. (ECF No. 55.) The Court screened Plaintiff’s

21

Second Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and dismissed all of Plaintiff’s

22

claims and Defendants except for Plaintiff’s excessive force claim against Defendant

23

Gonzales. (ECF No. 56-59.) Defendant Gonzales has been served in this action. (ECF

24

No. 76.)

25

In lieu of an answer, on December 12, 2011, Defendant Gonzales filed a motion to

26

revoke Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status on the ground that Plaintiff is a “three-strikes”

27

litigant. (ECF No. 77.) After reviewing the motion, the Court ordered Defendant Gonzales

28

to produce an additional document in connection with his motion, and Defendant Gonzales
-1-

1

complied. (ECF Nos. 80 & 81.)1 Plaintiff’s time for filing an opposition to Defendant

2

Gonzales’ motion has long passed. Local Rule 230. Defendant Gonzales’ motion is now

3

before the Court.

4

II.

28 U.S.C. § 1915 governs proceedings in forma pauperis. Section 1915(g) provides

5
6

LEGAL STANDARD

that
[i]n 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 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.

7
8
9
10
11

“[I]f the language of a statute is clear, we look no further than that language in determining

12

the statute's meaning,” unless “what seems to be the plain meaning of the statute ... lead[s]

13

to absurd or impracticable consequences.” Seattle–First Nat'l Bank v. Conaway, 98 F.3d

14

1195, 1197 (9th Cir. 1996) (internal quotations and citations omitted). The language of

15

section 1915(g) is clear: a dismissal on the ground that an action is frivolous, malicious, or

16

fails to state a claim counts as strike. Adherence to the language of section 1915(g) by

17

counting as strikes only those dismissals that were made upon the grounds of frivolity,

18

maliciousness, and/or failure to state a claim does not lead to absurd or impracticable

19

consequences. Federal courts are well aware of the existence of section 1915(g). If a

20

court dismisses an action on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, and/or fails to state

21

a claim, the court should state as much. Such a dismissal may then be counted as a strike

22

under 1915(g).

23

III.

ANALYSIS

24

Defendant Gonzales argues that the following cases should count as strikes: 1)

25

Moten v. Renwick, et al., E.D. Cal. 98-CV-0118, 2) Moten v. Garcia, N.D. Cal.

26
27
28

1
In lieu of an opposition, Plaintiff filed a motion “for hearing on imminent endangerment of life.”
(ECF No. 79.) Plaintiff’s motion cannot be construed as an opposition to Defendant Gonzales’ motion
because it is based on information irrelevant to the 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) imminent danger analysis.

-2-

1

03-CV-01581, 3) Moten v. Garcia, et al., 9th Cir. 05-56046, 4) Moten v. Small, et al., S.D.

2

Cal. 99-CV-2409, 5) Moten v. Small, et al., 9th Cir. 03-56731, 6) Moten v. Small, et al., 9th

3

Cir. 04-55692, 7) Moten v. Giurbino, et al., E.D. Cal. 04-CV-1891, 8) Moten v. Gomez, et

4

al., E.D. Cal. 03-CV-1729, 9) Moten v. Gomez, at al., 9th Cir. 05-17037, 10) Moten v.

5

Gomez, et al., 9th Cir. 06-17020, 11) Moten v. Adams, E.D. Cal. 06-CV-1155, 12) Moten

6

v. Yale, (Cal. Super. Ct. Kings County, No. 08C 0068), and 13) Moten v. Maylin, et al., (Cal.

7

Super. Ct. Kings County, No. 08CV0906). Defendant Gonzales also points out that none

8

of Plaintiff’s forty-three lawsuits in the Ninth Circuit, Eastern District of California, and

9

Central District of California have been decided in his favor.

10

The Court takes judicial notice of the above actions.

11

The following cases cited to by Defendant Gonzales do not count as a dismissal

12

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g): Moten v. Garcia, N.D. Cal. 03-CV-01581 (dismissed for

13

incorrect venue), Moten v. Garcia, et al., 9th Cir. 05-56046 (Appeal dismissed for failure

14

to prosecute as a result of failing to pay filing fee), Moten v. Small, et al., S.D. Cal

15

99-CV-2409 (motion to dismiss granted for failure to state a claim and failure to exhaust

16

administrative remedies), Moten v. Small, et al., 9th Cir. 03-56731 (appeal dismissed for

17

failure to prosecute), Moten v. Small, et al., 9th Cir. 04-55692 (appeal dismissed for failure

18

to prosecute), Moten v. Gomez, et al., 9th Cir. 05-17037 (appeal dismissed for failure to

19

prosecute), Moten v. Gomez, et al., 9th Cir. 06-17020 (appeal dismissed for failure to

20

prosecute), Moten v. Adams, E.D. Cal. 6-CV-1155 (dismissed for failure to exhaust

21

administrative remedies), Moten v. Yale (Cal. Super. Ct. Kings County, No. 08C

22

0068)(Plaintiff declared to be a vexatious litigant), and Moten v. Maylin, et al. (Cal. Super.

23

Ct. Kings County, No. 08CV0906)(Plaintiff declared to be vexatious litigant).

24

However, it appears that the other three cases cited to by Defendant Gonzales

25

would count as strikes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). According to the docket entry for

26

Moten v. Renwick, et al., E.D. Cal. 98-CV-0118, this action was dismissed for failure to

27

state a claim on June 12, 2001. This is a dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

28

According to the docket entry for Moten v. Giurbino, et al., E.D. Cal. 04-CV-1891, this
-3-

1

action was dismissed for failure to state a claim on November 24, 2004. This is a dismissal

2

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). According to the docket entry for Moten v. Gomez, et

3

al., E.D. Cal. 03-CV-1729, this action was dismissed as frivolous and for failure to state a

4

claim on September 19, 2006. This is a dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

5

The Court concludes that Plaintiff has thus accrued three strikes pursuant to 28

6

U.S.C. § 1915(g).2 Because Plaintiff was subject to the three strikes provision of § 1915(g)

7

since at least September 19, 2006, he may not proceed in forma pauperis in this action

8

unless, at the time of the filing of this action, he was under imminent danger of serious

9

physical injury. Plaintiff’s original Complaint alleged that CSP-Corcoran had inadequate

10

cooling systems for inmates during the summer, inmates had been subject to “contrived

11

emergency lock-downs,” and that his religious needs were not being met by prison officials.

12

(Compl., ECF No. 1 at 3-8.) Plaintiff made general allegations about how the heat

13

conditions amounted to cruel and unusual punishment, but failed to allege how the heat

14

conditions posed an immediate threat to him. Plaintiff’s allegations of imminent danger of

15

serious physical injury at the time he initiated this action are speculative and are not

16

sufficient for imminent danger under the three strikes provision of § 1915(g). See

17

Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1057, n. 11 (“assertions of imminent danger of less obviously

18

injurious practices may be rejected as overly speculative or fanciful.”).3
The Court will recommend revocation of Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status and will

19
20

recommend that Plaintiff be provided with the opportunity to pay the filing fee in full.

21

IV.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

22

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

23

1.

Defendants' motion to revoke Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status, filed
December 11, 2011, should be GRANTED;

24
25
2

26

Plaintiff has not disputed this in an opposition or in his Motion for Endangerment of Life. (ECF

No. 79.)

27
28

3
The Court also notes that Plaintiff did not raise this claim again in his First or Second Amended
Complaints and that Plaintiff is only currently proceeding on his excessive force claim against Defendant
Gonzales. (ECF Nos. 39, 46, 55, & 56.)

-4-

1

2.

Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status should be REVOKED;

2

3.

Plaintiff be ordered to pay the full $350.00 filing fee within fourteen (14) days

3

from the date of service of the District Judge's order adjudicating these

4

Findings and Recommendations; and
4.

5

Failure to timely pay the full filing fee should result in dismissal of this action
without prejudice.

6
7

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District

8

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

9

Within fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations,

10

any party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such

11

a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and

12

Recommendations." Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within ten days

13

after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within

14

the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Y1

15

st, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

Dated:
ci4d6

June 28, 2012

Michael J. Seng

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-5-