Hill v. Tehachapi State Prison

Filing 3

ORDER Denying 2 Motion to Proceed IFP and Dismissing Action Under 28 USC 1915(g), Without Prejudice to Refiling With Submission of $400.00 Filing Fee In Full, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 7/29/16. CASE CLOSED. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TONY LEE HILL,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

vs.
TEHACHAPI STATE PRISON TRUST
ACCOUNT OFFICE,
Defendant.

16

1:16-cv-01085-LJO-EPG-PC
ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
AND DISMISSING ACTION UNDER
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), WITHOUT
PREJUDICE TO REFILING WITH
SUBMISSION OF $400.00 FILING FEE
IN FULL
(ECF Nos. 1, 2.)
ORDER FOR CLERK TO CLOSE
CASE

17
18
19

I.

BACKGROUND

20

Tony Lee Hill (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights

21

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on

22

July 28, 2016, together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

23

§ 1915. (ECF Nos. 1, 2.)

24

II.

THREE-STRIKES PROVISION OF 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)

25

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

26

that “[i]n no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action . . . under this section if the prisoner has,

27

on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action

28

or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous,
1

1

malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is

2

under imminent danger of serious physical injury.”

3

III.

ANALYSIS

4

A review of the actions filed by Plaintiff reveals that Plaintiff is subject to 28 U.S.C. '

5

1915(g) and is precluded from proceeding in forma pauperis unless Plaintiff was, at the time

6

the Complaint was filed, under imminent danger of serious physical injury. The Court has

7

found evidence on the Court record of three 1915(g) “strikes” against Plaintiff, which were all

8

entered before this action was brought by Plaintiff on July 28, 2016.1 The first is case 2:99-cv-

9

06406-ABC-CT (Hill v. Wallace, et al.) (CACD), which was dismissed on July 7, 1999, for

10

failure to state a claim. The second is case 2:11-cv-08794-UA-CW (Hill v. Torrance Police

11

Dept., et al.) (CACD), which was dismissed on July 20, 2012 for failure to state a claim. The

12

third is case 2:13-cv-00805-UA-CW (Hill v. Horton, et al.) (EDCA), which was dismissed on

13

February 28, 2013 for failure to state a claim.

14

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff=s Complaint for this action and finds that Plaintiff does

15

not meet the imminent danger exception. See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th

16

Cir. 2007).2 Therefore, Plaintiff may not proceed in forma pauperis in this action, and must

17

submit the appropriate filing fee in order to proceed with this action. Accordingly, Plaintiff=s

18

application to proceed in forma pauperis shall be denied, and this action shall be dismissed,

19

without prejudice to refiling with the submission of the $400.00 filing fee in full.

20

IV.

CONCLUSION

21

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

22

1.

23

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(g), Plaintiff=s application to proceed in forma
pauperis in this action is DENIED;

24
25
26
27
28

1

The Court has examined the orders dismissing the five cases and finds that they constitute “strikes”
within the meaning of § 1915(g).
2

The Complaint is devoid of any showing that Plaintiff was under imminent danger of serious physical
injury at the time he filed the Complaint. Plaintiff alleges in the Complaint that he was given a copy of his prison
trust account statement which was altered and did not show his correct deposits and withdrawals. Plaintiff claims
that as a result, he suffered mental anxiety. The Court expresses no opinion on the merits of Plaintiff’s claims.
2

1

2.

2
3

This action is DISMISSED, without prejudice to refiling with the submission of
the $400.00 filing fee in full; and

3.

The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case.

4
5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

July 29, 2016

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3