Buchanan v. Clark et al

Filing 26

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that Defendant Clark's Motion to Revoke Plaintiff's In Forma Pauperis status be DENIED without prejudice re 22 MOTION to Revoke Plaintiff's In Forma Pauperis Status filed by G. Clark ; referred to Judge O'Neill,signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 06/14/2012. Objections to F&R due by 7/2/2012 (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

WHITTIER BUCHANAN,

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-2029-LJO-MJS (PC)

Plaintiff,

10
11
12

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION FOR
DENIAL OF DEFENDANT CLARK’S
MOTION TO REVOKE PLAINTIFF’S IFP
STATUS

v.
G. CLARK, et al.

(ECF No. 22)

13
Defendants.

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN
(14) DAYS

14
/

15
16
I.

BACKGROUND

17
Plaintiff Whittier Buchanan (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
18
forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
19
Plaintiff initiated this action on November 19, 2009. (ECF No. 1.) The Court
20
screened Plaintiff’s Complaint and gave Plaintiff the option of either proceeding on his
21
cognizable claim for excessive force under the Eighth Amendment against Defendants
22
Clark and Erickson or filing an amended complaint. (ECF No. 15.) Plaintiff notified the
23
Court that he was willing to proceed on his cognizable claim; the other Defendants and
24
claims were dismissed. (ECF Nos. 16, 17, & 18.) The Court then ordered service on
25
Defendants Clark and Erickson. (ECF Nos. 19 & 21.) As of this date, only Defendant
26
Clark has filed an executed waiver of service. (ECF No. 23.)
27
On May 1, 2012, Defendant Clark filed a motion to revoke Plaintiff’s in forma
28
-1-

1

pauperis status. (ECF No. 22.) Plaintiff filed an opposition. (ECF No. 24.) Defendant

2

Clark filed a reply. (ECF No. 25.) Defendant Clark’s motion is now ready for ruling.

3

II.

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

4
5

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.

6
7
8
9
10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

1

21

strike under 1915(g).

22

III.

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

DISCUSSION

23

Plaintiff has had the following cases filed and dismissed on the ground that Plaintiff

24

was not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis: Buchanan v. Terhune, et al., 4:99-cv-2007

25

(C.D. Cal.); Buchanan v. Terhune, et al., 4:99-cv-2076 (C.D. Cal.); Buchanan v. Harris, et

26

al., 4:99-cv-3911 (C.D. Cal.); Buchanan v. Perez, et al., 4:99-cv-3990 (C.D. Cal.);

27
28
-2-

1

Buchanan v. Adkinson, et al., 4:03-cv-3678 (C.D. Cal.); and Buchanan v. Adkinson, et al.,

2

4:03-cv-03737 (C.D. Cal.). However, there is no clear explanation of the bases for these

3

denials of Plaintiff’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis. Defendant Clark attaches only

4

the docket entries for these cases, and those entries do not reflect the reason for

5

dismissal. Thus, the Court cannot determine whether the cases were dismissed because

6

they were frivolous, were malicious, or because they failed to state a claim.

7

Defendant Clark does refer to Buchanan v. Chavez, et al., 4:99-cv-3991 (C.D. Cal.)

8

and Buchanan v. Williams, et al., 06-cv-1532 (E. D. Cal.) which apparently were dismissed

9

for failing to state claim. Those are the only two cases mentioned which clearly count as

10

strikes under section 1915(g). Since Defendant Clark provides evidence of only two

11

previous cases meeting the criteria, Plaintiff will be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis.

12

IV.

Accordingly, the Court hereby RECOMMENDS that Defendant Clark’s motion to

13
14

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

revoke Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status be denied without prejudice.

15

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24
25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.

27

Dated:
ci4d6

June 14, 2012

Michael J. Seng

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

28
-3-