Hoffmann v. Sherman et al
Filing
10
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS, Recommending that Plaintiff's In Forma Pauperis Status be Revoked and that Plaintiff be Required to Pay the $400.00 Filing Fee re 2 , 9 , signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 3/27/18. Referred to Judge O'Neill. Objections to F&R Due Within Twenty-One Days. (Gonzalez, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
KASEY F. HOFFMANN,
10
Plaintiff,
11
v.
12
STU SHERMAN, et al.,
13
Defendants.
I.
16
17
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,
RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S
IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS BE
REVOKED AND THAT PLAINTIFF BE
REQUIRED TO PAY THE $400.00
FILING FEE
(ECF NOS. 2 & 9)
14
15
Case No. 1:18-cv-00195-LJO-EPG (PC)
BACKGROUND
Kasey Hoffmann (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
18
As the Court finds that Plaintiff had “three strikes” before filing this action and was not
19
in imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed the action, the Court will
20
recommend that Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis be revoked and that Plaintiff be required to pay
21
the $400 filing fee if he wants to proceed with this action.
22
II.
THREE-STRIKES PROVISION OF 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)
23
28 U.S.C. § 1915 governs proceedings in forma pauperis. Section 1915(g) provides
24
that “[i]n no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action… under this section if the prisoner has,
25
on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action
26
or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous,
27
malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is
28
under imminent danger of serious physical injury.”
1
1
In determining whether a case counts as a “strike,” “the reviewing court looks to the
2
dismissing court's action and the reasons underlying it…. This means that the procedural
3
mechanism or Rule by which the dismissal is accomplished, while informative, is not
4
dispositive.” Knapp v. Hogan, 738 F.3d 1106, 1109 (9th Cir. 2013) (internal citation omitted).
5
See also O'Neal, 531 F.3d 1146, 1153 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191
6
F.3d 983, 986–87 (9th Cir. 1999) (alteration in original) (“no ‘particular formalities are
7
necessary for an order that serves as the basis of [an involuntary] dismissal’”).
8
III.
PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
9
10
11
a. Strikes
Plaintiff initiated this action on February 7, 2018. (ECF No. 1). The Court finds that,
prior to this date, Plaintiff had three cases dismissed that count as “strikes.”
12
The Court takes judicial notice of Hoffman v. Pulido (“Pulido”),1 E.D. CA, Case No.
13
1:18-cv-00209, ECF Nos. 7, 10, & 13. Judge Anthony W. Ishii examined Plaintiff’s prior
14
filings, and concluded that Plaintiff has filed three cases that constitute “strikes” under the
15
“three-strike” rule in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Id. Upon careful review of this decision, as well as
16
the cases that Judge Ishii found to constitute strikes, the Court finds Judge Ishii’s analysis to be
17
properly supported by existing law. Thus, the Court agrees with Judge Ishii’s decision and
18
finds that Plaintiff has filed at least three cases that constitute “strikes.”
19
The three cases Judge Ishii counted as strikes, which the Court also takes judicial notice
20
of, are: 1) Hoffmann v. Jones (“Jones”), E.D. CA, Case No. 2:15-cv-01735; 2) Hoffmann v.
21
California Correctional Health Care Services (“CCHCS”), E.D. CA, Case No. 2:16-cv-01691;
22
and 3) Hoffmann v. Growden (“Growden”), E.D. CA, Case No. 2:15-cv-01431. Pulido, ECF
23
No. 7, p. 2; ECF No. 10.
24
Jones was dismissed as being duplicative of Case No. 2:15-cv-1729. Jones, ECF No. 9.
25
Duplicative lawsuits filed by a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis may be dismissed as
26
either frivolous or malicious. See e.g., Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n. 2 (9th
27
28
1
While the docket lists the last name as “Hoffman” instead of “Hoffmann,” review of the complaint, as
well as Plaintiff’s CDCR number, reveals that it is in fact the same person.
2
1
Cir.1995). While the Jones Court did not state that the filing was frivolous or malicious, the
2
Court recommends finding that it counts as a “strike” based on the reasoning in the decision.
3
Knapp 738 F.3d at 1109 (9th Cir. 2013) (internal citation omitted) (“[T]he reviewing court
4
looks to the dismissing court's action and the reasons underlying it…. This means that the
5
procedural mechanism or Rule by which the dismissal is accomplished, while informative, is
6
not dispositive.”).
7
Here, it does not appear that Plaintiff’s duplicative filing was merely a mistake. When
8
it was brought to Plaintiff’s attention that Jones was duplicative of Case No. 2:15-cv-1729,
9
Plaintiff attempted to argue that that Jones was not in fact duplicative. Jones, ECF No. 8.
10
Despite Plaintiff’s objection, the dismissing court noted that Plaintiff’s allegations in Jones
11
were in fact duplicative of Case No. 2:15-cv-1729, and dismissed Plaintiff’s case. Jones, ECF
12
No. 9, p. 2. Accordingly, the Court finds that Jones counts as a “strike” because it was
13
duplicative of another case and thus frivolous under the legal standards described above.
14
As to CCHCS, the Court finds that it was dismissed for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff
15
apparently filed CCHCS after getting a notification that a laptop was stolen. The notice stated
16
stated, in part:
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
We do not know if any sensitive information was contained in the
laptop. To the extent any sensitive information may have been
contained in the laptop, we do not know if the information
included any of your information. If your information was
included, the nature of the information may have included
confidential medical, mental health, and custodial information.
To the extent any sensitive information may have been contained
in the laptop, we estimate that it would have been limited to
information related to your custody and care, if any, between
1996 and 2014.
CCHCS, ECF No. 7, p. 4; ECF No. 8, p. 3).
24
While the findings and recommendations (CCHCS, ECF No. 8), which were adopted in
25
full (CCHCS, ECF No. 11), largely focus on standing, Plaintiff’s federal claims were dismissed
26
“because the facts show only that plaintiff’s sensitive information might have been stolen and
27
the letter he relies on establishes that he will not be able to show that his information was
28
actually stolen because it is not known what was on the laptop. Plaintiff’s injury is therefore
3
1
too speculative to support a claim.”2 CCHCS, ECF No. 8, p. 7. As Plaintiff’s allegations were
2
found to be too speculative to support a claim, the Court finds that this case was dismissed for
3
failure to state a claim and thus counts as a “strike.” Harris v. Mangum, 863 F.3d 1133, 1142
4
(9th Cir. 2017) (quoting El-Shaddai v. Zamora, 833 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2016) (internal
5
quotation marks omitted) (“[W]hen we review a dismissal to determine whether it counts as a
6
strike, the style of the dismissal or the procedural posture is immaterial. Instead, the central
7
question is whether the dismissal rang the PLRA bells of frivolous, malicious, or failure to state
8
a claim.”).
9
Finally, Growden was dismissed because Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which
10
relief could be granted. Growden, ECF No. 13. Accordingly, the Court finds that this case
11
counts as a “strike.”
12
b. Williams v. King
13
In light of Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500 (9th Cir. 2017), a new issue has arisen in
14
determining whether certain cases count as “strikes.” In Williams, the Court of Appeals for the
15
Ninth Circuit held that “28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) requires the consent of all plaintiffs and
16
defendants named in the complaint—irrespective of service of process—before jurisdiction
17
may vest in a magistrate judge to hear and decide a civil case that a district court would
18
otherwise hear.” Id. at 501.
19
In Growden, a magistrate judge issued the final order dismissing the case based only on
20
the consent of Plaintiff. Under Williams, consent only by the Plaintiff is insufficient to confer
21
jurisdiction on the magistrate judge.
22
recommends that Growden count as a “strike” notwithstanding Williams. Pulido, ECF No. 10
23
(finding that magistrate judge dismissals issued without the consent of all named defendants
24
still count as “strikes” after Williams).
After careful consideration of this issue, the Court
25
First of all, examining the jurisdiction of the dismissing court in prior cases goes
26
beyond the scope of review under § 1915(g). When determining whether a prior case counts as
27
28
2
The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims. CCHCS, ECF
No. 8, p. 6; ECF No. 11.
4
1
a “strike,” “[t]he underlying principle is that we must decide whether the case was disposed of
2
because the complaint was frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim, regardless of how the
3
district court labels its decision.” El-Shaddai, 833 F.3d at 1044. See also Harris v. Mangum,
4
863 F.3d 1133, 1142 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting El-Shaddai, 833 F.3d at 1042) (internal quotation
5
marks omitted) (“[W]hen we review a dismissal to determine whether it counts as a strike, the
6
style of the dismissal or the procedural posture is immaterial. Instead, the central question is
7
whether the dismissal ‘rang the PLRA bells of frivolous, malicious, or failure to state a
8
claim.”). Neither the Ninth Circuit nor the Supreme Court has instructed lower courts to
9
examine the basis for jurisdiction before deciding whether a case counts as a “strike.” Pulido,
10
ECF No. 10, p. 3 (“That is, there does not appear to be a case that directs lower courts to also
11
determine whether the ‘dismissing court’ had jurisdiction to dismiss and create a strike.”).
12
Moreover, there are good reasons not to conduct such an inquiry. One is that parties are
13
generally not allowed to re-litigate issues they already had an opportunity to litigate. Taylor v.
14
Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 892 (2008) (alterations in original) (internal citations and quotation
15
marks omitted) (“The preclusive effect of a judgment is defined by claim preclusion and issue
16
preclusion, which are collectively referred to as res judicata…. By preclud[ing] parties from
17
contesting matters that they have had a full and fair opportunity to litigate, these two doctrines
18
protect against the expense and vexation attending multiple lawsuits, conserv[e] judicial
19
resources, and foste[r] reliance on judicial action by minimizing the possibility of inconsistent
20
decisions.”). Here, Growden was dismissed after a magistrate judge determined that Plaintiff
21
failed to state a claim. Despite having the opportunity to do so, Plaintiff did not challenge the
22
magistrate judge’s jurisdiction, at the trial court or on appeal.
23
This is not to say that a plaintiff who believes a prior judgment is void is without
24
remedies. In fact, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure expressly contemplate granting parties
25
relief from a final judgment when the final judgment is void. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4).
26
However, this rule requires the party that wants to set aside the judgment to take action to set
27
aside the judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); Snell v. Cleveland, Inc., 316 F.3d 822, 826 (9th Cir.
28
2002). Plaintiff has not taken any action to set aside the judgment in Growden, and collaterally
5
1
challenging the judgment in this case would be inappropriate. Nemaizer v. Baker, 793 F.2d 58,
2
65 (2d Cir. 1986) (citing Chicot Cty. Drainage Dist. v. Baxter State Bank, 308 U.S. 371, 378
3
(1940)) (“[I]f the parties could have challenged the court's power to hear a case, then res
4
judicata principles serve to bar them from later challenging it collaterally.”).
5
Moreover, even if Plaintiff were allowed to challenge the judgment in Growden via a
6
collateral attack in this action, it does not appear that the judgment in Growden would be found
7
to be void. “A final judgment is ‘void’ for purposes of Rule 60(b)(4) only if the court that
8
considered it lacked jurisdiction, either as to the subject matter of the dispute or over the parties
9
to be bound, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process of law.” United States v.
10
Berke, 170 F.3d 882, 883 (9th Cir. 1999).3 “Defective jurisdictional allegations are not fatal,
11
however. A judgment is only void where there is a ‘total want of jurisdiction’ as opposed to an
12
‘error in the exercise of jurisdiction.’” NewGen, LLC v. Safe Cig, LLC, 840 F.3d 606, 612
13
(9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Watts v. Pinckney, 752 F.2d 406, 409 (9th Cir. 1985)). See also
14
United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260, 271 (2010) (quoting Nemaizer, 793
15
F.2d at 65) (“Federal courts considering Rule 60(b)(4) motions that assert a judgment is void
16
because of a jurisdictional defect generally have reserved relief only for the exceptional case in
17
which the court that rendered judgment lacked even an ‘arguable basis’ for jurisdiction.”).
18
The magistrate judge in Growden had an arguable basis for exercising jurisdiction, and
19
at most made an error in exercising jurisdiction. The Ninth Circuit had not weighed in on the
20
issue, and its decision in Williams had not yet issued. Moreover, in 1995, the Court of Appeals
21
for the Fifth Circuit held that lack of consent from unserved defendants did not deprive the
22
magistrate judge of jurisdiction where the plaintiff consented, because the unserved defendants
23
were not parties under 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(c). Neals v. Norwood, 59 F.3d 530, 532 (5th Cir.
24
1995).
25
magistrate judge’s exercise of jurisdiction, and no conflicting precedent from the Ninth Circuit
Accordingly, there was precedent from a federal court of appeals supporting the
26
27
28
3
The Rule 60(b)(4) standard is essentially the same standard that is used when a party attempts to
collaterally attack a judgment. See, e.g., Baella-Silva v. Hulsey, 454 F.3d 5, 10 (1st Cir. 2006); Nemaizer, 793
F.2d at 65; Pulido, ECF No. 10, p. 7.
6
1
or United States Supreme Court.
2
Moreover, “[a]n error in interpreting a statutory grant of jurisdiction is not… equivalent
3
to acting with total want of jurisdiction and does not render the judgment a complete nullity.”
4
Jones v. Giles, 741 F.2d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1984). In Williams, the Ninth Circuit held that the
5
magistrate judge made an error in interpreting § 636(c)(1) as providing magistrate judges with
6
jurisdiction where a plaintiff consents and the defendants are unserved, because the unserved
7
defendants are still parties. 875 F.3d at 504. As the magistrate judge in Growden made the
8
same error in interpreting a statutory grant of jurisdiction, and as the interpretation was not
9
unreasonable (it was the same interpretation adopted by the Fifth Circuit), the judgment in
10
Growden is not void.
11
Finally, the judge in Growden was acting pursuant to a Local Rule that provided that
12
prisoner civil rights cases are treated as consent cases so long as all parties who have appeared
13
consented. See Local Rules, Appendix A(k)(4); E.D. Cal. General Order 467. This rule in
14
essence tracks the holding in Neals, and took effect on June 2, 2008 (E.D. Cal. General Order
15
467). As the order dismissing Growden was entered on May 4, 2017 (Growden, ECF No. 13),
16
the rule had been in effect almost nine years by the time the magistrate judge dismissed
17
Plaintiff’s case. By this time hundreds (if not thousands) of cases were decided by magistrate
18
judges in the Eastern District of California based on just a plaintiff’s consent (see Eastern
19
District of California 2017 Annual Report, p. 29).
20
Accordingly, the Court finds that, even after Williams, cases where a magistrate judge
21
issued an order dismissing a case without the consent of all named defendants can still count as
22
a “strike,” so long as the order has not been declared void in an appeal or other appropriate
23
challenge.
24
c. Imminent Danger
25
As Plaintiff has at least three prior cases that count as “strikes,” Plaintiff is precluded
26
from proceeding in forma pauperis unless Plaintiff was, at the time the complaint was filed,
27
under imminent danger of serious physical injury. The availability of the imminent danger
28
exception “turns on the conditions a prisoner faced at the time the complaint was filed, not at
7
1
some earlier or later time.” Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2007).
2
“Imminent danger of serious physical injury must be a real, present threat, not merely
3
speculative or hypothetical.” Blackman v. Mjening, No. 116CV01421LJOGSAPC, 2016 WL
4
5815905, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2016). To meet his burden under § 1915(g), Plaintiff must
5
provide “specific fact allegations of ongoing serious physical injury, or a pattern of misconduct
6
evidencing the likelihood of imminent serious physical injury.” Martin v. Shelton, 319 F.3d
7
1048, 1050 (8th Cir. 2003). “[V]ague and utterly conclusory assertions” of imminent danger
8
are insufficient. White v. Colorado, 157 F.3d 1226, 1231–32 (10th Cir. 1998). See also Martin
9
v. Shelton, 319 F.3d 1048, 1050 (8th Cir. 2003) (“[C]onclusory assertions” are “insufficient to
10
invoke the exception to § 1915(g)….”). The “imminent danger” exception is available “for
11
genuine emergencies,” where “time is pressing” and “a threat… is real and proximate.” Lewis
12
v. Sullivan, 279 F.3d 526, 531 (7th Cir. 2002).
13
Additionally, “the complaint of a three-strikes litigant must reveal a nexus between the
14
imminent danger it alleges and the claims it asserts, in order for the litigant to qualify for the
15
‘imminent danger’ exception of § 1915(g). In deciding whether such a nexus exists, we will
16
consider (1) whether the imminent danger of serious physical injury that a three-strikes litigant
17
alleges is fairly traceable to unlawful conduct asserted in the complaint and (2) whether a
18
favorable judicial outcome would redress that injury. The three-strikes litigant must meet both
19
requirements in order to proceed [in forma pauperis].” Stine v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, No.
20
1:13-CV-1883 AWI MJS, 2015 WL 5255377, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2015) (quoting Pettus v.
21
Morgenthau, 554 F.3d 293, 298–99 (2d Cir. 2009)).
22
23
Because Plaintiff is pro se, in making the imminent danger determination the Court
must liberally construe Plaintiff’s allegations. Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1055 (9th Cir. 2007).
24
Here, Plaintiff’s allegations revolve around the destruction of a towel, foul language, a
25
threat to strip search Plaintiff, harassment, a retaliatory transfer to a different yard, and a failure
26
to process a 602 Plaintiff filed. There are no allegations from which the Court could draw an
27
inference that Plaintiff was in imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed
28
this action.
8
1
As the Court finds that Plaintiff is a “three-striker” who was not is in imminent danger
2
when he filed this case, the Court will recommend revoking Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status.
3
IV.
4
5
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Court finds that under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) Plaintiff may not proceed in forma
pauperis in this action.
6
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
7
1. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the order granting Plaintiff’s application to
8
proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 9) be VACATED and that Plaintiff’s in forma
9
pauperis status in this action be REVOKED; and
10
2. Plaintiff be directed to pay the $400.00 filing fee in full if he wants to proceed with
11
this action.
12
These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States district
13
judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within
14
twenty-one (21) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff
15
may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to
16
Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.”
17
Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in
18
the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014)
19
(citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
20
21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
22
23
Dated:
March 27, 2018
/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
24
25
26
27
28
9
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?