Palmer v. Berkson, et al.
Filing
17
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 12/31/2013 recommending that Plaintiff's In Forma Pauperis status be REVOKED and requiring payment of filing fee in full within 21-days. Referred to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill; Objections to F&R due by 1/17/2014. (Lundstrom, T)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
WILL MOSES PALMER, III,
Case No. 1:11-cv-01882-LJO-MJS (PC)
Plaintiff,
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
REVOKING PLAINTIFF’S IN FORMA
PAUPERIS STATUS AND REQUIRING
PAYMENT OF FILING FEE IN FULL
WITHIN TWENTY-ONE DAYS
12
13
v.
14
DR. RICHARD P. BERKSON, et al.,
15
Defendants.
(ECF No. 3)
16
FOURTEEN-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE
17
18
Plaintiff Will Moses Palmer III is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights
19
20
action filed November 14, 2011 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 5, 2012, the
21
undersigned issued an order granting Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis
22
(“IFP”). This matter is in the screening phase.
For this case and, for the reasons discussed below, the undersigned recommends
23
24
that Plaintiff’s IFP status be revoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and that he be required
25
to pay the $400 filing fee in full within twenty-one days of adoption of these findings and
26
recommendations.
27
I.
28
LEGAL STANDARD
Section 1915(g) provides that “[i]n no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action . . .
1
1
under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or
2
detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was
3
dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which
4
relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical
5
injury.”1 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
A court may raise the issue of strikes sua sponte. Strope v. Cummings, 653 F.3d
6
7
1271, 1273 (10th Cir. 2011).
8
II.
ANALYSIS
Section 1915 of Title 28 of the United States Code governs proceedings in forma
9
10
pauperis. A review of the actions filed by Plaintiff in the United States District Court reveals
11
that Plaintiff has filed three actions that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failing
12
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Determining whether Plaintiff’s actions count as strikes under § 1915(g) requires the
13
14
Court to conduct a “careful examination of the order dismissing an action, and other
15
relevant information,” to determine if, in fact, “the action was dismissed because it was
16
frivolous, malicious or failed to state a claim.” Andrews, 398 F.3d 1113 at 1121.
The Court takes judicial notice of the following cases which count as strikes:2 1)
17
18
Palmer v. Lamarque, 3:03-cv-00956-SI (C.D. Cal.), ECF No. 6 (dismissed May 16, 2003,
19
for failure to state a claim); 2) Palmer v. Johnson, 2:05-cv-07121-UA-E (C.D. Cal.), ECF
20
No. 2 (dismissed November 2, 2005, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
21
granted); and 3) Palmer v. Johnson, 2:05-cv-08547-ABC (C.D. Cal.), ECF No. 24
22
(dismissed December 1, 2006, for failure to state a claim).
23
Plaintiff’s complaint in Palmer v. Lamarque, No. 3:03-cv-00956-SI (N.D. Cal. May 16,
24
2003), was dismissed on April 30, 2003, for failure to state a claim and Plaintiff was granted
25
until May 23, 2003, to file an amendment or an amended complaint. On May 16, 2003, the
26
1
27
28
“This subdivision is commonly known as the three strikes provision. Strikes are prior cases or appeals,
brought while the plaintiff was a prisoner, which were dismissed on the ground that they were frivolous,
malicious, or failed to state a claim. Pursuant to § 1915(g), a prisoner with three strikes or more cannot
proceed in forma pauperis. See Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1116 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005).
2
United States ex. Rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir.
1992) (a court “may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial
system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.”).
2
1
action was dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file an amended
2
complaint on August 5, 2003, and was advised that he could file a new complaint, but
3
could not continue to litigate this action. Plaintiff did not file an amendment or an amended
4
complaint within the time granted by the court. Since the complaint was dismissed for
5
failure to state a claim, this dismissal is a strike under section 1915(g). Lira v. Herrera, 427
6
F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2005).
7
In Palmer v. Johnson, 2:05-cv-08547-ABC, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint
8
with prejudice because the defendant was a United States Magistrate Judge with absolute
9
judicial immunity. (See 2:05-cv-08547, ECF No. 24.) In its dismissal order, the Court noted
10
that Plaintiff sued Magistrate Judge Johnson because he did not receive the relief he hoped
11
for in a prior habeas case. (See id.) The dismissal order demonstrates that the complaint
12
failed to state a claim and was legally frivolous because the defendant had absolute judicial
13
immunity. See Andrews, 398 F.3d 1113 at 1121 (for § 1915(g) purposes, a case “is
14
frivolous if it is ‘of little weight or importance: having no basis in law or fact’”). This was the
15
second lawsuit Plaintiff initiated against Magistrate Judge Johnson. The first was dismissed
16
for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. See Palmer v. Johnson,
17
2:05-cv-07121-UA-E (C.D. Cal.). The Court finds that the second Palmer v. Johnson case,
18
2:05-cv-08547-ABC (C.D. Cal.), which was dismissed with prejudice, also failed to state a
19
claim upon which relief may be granted and was frivolous.
20
These strikes were final before Plaintiff filed this action on November 14, 2011.
21
Moreover, Plaintiff does not demonstrate that he faced imminent danger of serious physical
22
injury at the time he filed his complaint. To meet the imminent danger exception, the threat
23
or prison condition must be real and proximate, Ciarpaglini v. Saini, 352 F.3d 328, 330 (7th
24
Cir. 2003), and the danger of serious physical injury must exist at the time the complaint is
25
filed. Malik v. McGinnis, 293 F.3d 559, 562-63 (2d Cir. 2002); Andrews v. Cervantes, 493
26
F.3d 1047, 1053-55 (9th Cir. 2007).
27
The complaint alleges that in 2006, Plaintiff was restrained and involuntarily
28
medicated, without due process, in retaliation for his protected activity. A prisoner’s
3
1
allegation that he or she faced danger in the past is insufficient to allow the prisoner to
2
proceed in forma pauperis. Addul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307, 311-13 (3d Cir. 2001).
3
Though the imminent danger exception may be satisfied where a danger is alleged to be
4
ongoing, see Tierney v. Alo, - - - F.2d - - - -, 2012 WL 622238 at *2 (D. Hawai’i February
5
24, 2012), citing Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1056, nothing in the pleading suggests threat of
6
harm extending beyond 2006.
For these reasons, Plaintiff does not meet the imminent danger exception. See
7
8
Childs v. Miller, 713 F.3d 1262, 1267 (10th Cir. 2013) (specific and credible allegations of
9
imminent danger of serious physical injury are required).
10
III.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
11
The undersigned concludes that Plaintiff’s IFP status should be revoked because he
12
accrued three or more strikes and was not under imminent danger of serious physical harm
13
at the time this action was initiated, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); and Plaintiff should be provided
14
with the opportunity to pay the filing fee in full.
15
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
16
1.
Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status (ECF No. 3) should be REVOKED,
17
2.
Plaintiff should be required to pay the $400 filing fee in full within twenty-one
days of adoption of these findings and recommendations, and
18
19
3.
If Plaintiff fails to pay the $400 filing fee in full within twenty-one days of
20
adoption of these findings and recommendations, all pending motion should
21
be terminated and this action dismissed without prejudice.
22
These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District
23
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within
24
fourteen (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, the parties
25
may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections
26
to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” A party may respond to another
27
party’s objections by filing a response within fourteen (14) days after being served with a
28
copy of that party’s objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within
4
1
the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst,
2
951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
12
Dated:
13
December 31, 2013
/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEAC _Signature- END:
14
Michael J. Seng
12eob4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
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?