Farley v. Virga, et al
Filing
35
ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 07/25/12 ORDERING the clerk of the court shall randomly assign a District Judge to this action. U.S. District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller randomly assigned to this action. Also, RECOMMENDING that defendants' 05/22/12 motion 30 be denied; and defendants be directed to file an answer within 14 days from any order by the district court adopting the instant findings and recommendations. MOTION 30 referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
LEONARD FARLEY,
11
12
13
Plaintiff,
vs.
TIM VIRGA, et al.,
14
17
ORDER AND
Defendants.
15
16
No. 2:11-cv-1830 KJN P
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
/
I. Introduction
Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel. Plaintiff seeks relief
18
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and is proceeding in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
19
This proceeding was referred to this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 302.
20
Pending before the court is defendants’ motion for an order declaring plaintiff to
21
be a three-strike litigant and revoking plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status. (Dkt. No. 30.)
22
Plaintiff filed an opposition, and defendants filed a reply.
23
II. Motion to Revoke In Forma Pauperis Status
24
A. Three Strikes
25
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915 permits any court of the United States to authorize the
26
commencement and prosecution of any suit without prepayment of fees by a person who submits
1
1
an affidavit indicating that the person is unable to pay such fees. However,
2
[i]n no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a
judgment in a civil action or proceeding 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.
3
4
5
6
7
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (hereafter “§ 1915(g)”).
8
In forma pauperis status may be acquired and lost during the course of litigation.
9
Stehouwer v. Hennessey, 841 F. Supp. 316, 321 (N.D. Cal. 1994), vacated on other grounds by
10
Olivares v. Marshall, 59 F.3d 109 (9th Cir. 1995). The plain language of § 1915(g) makes clear
11
that a prisoner is precluded from bringing a civil action or an appeal in forma pauperis if the
12
prisoner has brought three frivolous actions and/or appeals, or any combination thereof totaling
13
three. See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1178 (9th Cir. 1999). A prisoner's in forma
14
pauperis status should be revoked only upon a determination that each action reviewed (as a
15
potential strike) is carefully evaluated to determine that it was dismissed as frivolous, malicious,
16
or for failure to state a claim. Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005). Defendant
17
has the burden to “produce documentary evidence that allows the district court to conclude that
18
the plaintiff has filed at least three prior actions . . . dismissed because they were ‘frivolous,
19
malicious or fail[ed] to state a claim.’” Id., at 1120, quoting § 1915(g).
20
Dismissal of an appeal as frivolous after a district court dismissal on grounds that
21
the action was frivolous counts as a separate strike. Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387
22
(5th Cir. 1996). However, Adepegba qualifies that insofar as affirmance does not go to the
23
merits but only finds no error at the district court level, affirmance should not count as a separate
24
strike.1 Id. On the other hand, when the appeal is frivolous on a separate ground, or when the
25
26
1
An appellate court reversal would also nullify a strike. Id., 103 F.3d at 387.
2
1
appeal of a district court dismissal as frivolous is itself frivolous, then the appeal dismissal is also
2
a strike. Id. at 388. See also Thompson v. Gibson, 289 F.3d 1218, 1222 (10th Cir. 2002); Moran
3
v. Sondalle, 218 F.3d 647, 651-52 (7th Cir. 2000) (both noting that frivolous appeals count as a
4
strike). Dismissals as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim with or without
5
prejudice may count as strikes. O'Neal v. Price, 531 F.3d 1146, 1154 (9th Cir. 2008). “Actions
6
dismissed for procedural defects are not necessarily strikes under § 1915(g), though they may
7
constitute strikes under certain circumstances.” Id. at 1155, n.9.
8
9
10
11
Moreover, the Ninth Circuit found that “a dismissal must be final before it counts
as a ‘strike’ for § 1915(g) purposes.” Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1098-99 (9th Cir.
2011). Thus,
14
a district court's dismissal of a case does not count as a ‘strike’
under § 1915(g) until the litigant has exhausted or waived his
opportunity to appeal. This means a dismissal ripens into a ‘strike’
for § 1915(g) purposes on the date of the Supreme Court's denial or
dismissal of a petition for writ of certiorari, if the prisoner filed
one, or from the date when the time to file a petition for writ of
certiorari expired, if he did not.
15
Id. at 1100 (internal quotation omitted.) “If a prisoner does not appeal a dismissal, the dismissal
16
counts as a ‘strike’ from the date when his time to file a direct appeal expired.” Id., n.6.
12
13
17
B. The Parties’ Positions
18
In the instant action, defendants argue that plaintiff had three prior actions or
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
appeals that were dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim:
1. Farley v. Ybanez, No. 2:10-cv-1950 (E.D. Cal. July 22, 2010).
On November 30, 2010, this case was dismissed for failure to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted.
2. Farley v. Ybanez, No. 10-17782 (9th Cir. 2010). The questions
raised on appeal were determined to be insubstantial and the
judgment summarily affirmed on February 8, 2011.
3. Farley v. Capot, No. 11-15193 (9th Cir. 2012). The questions
raised on appeal were determined to be insubstantial and the
[order] summarily affirmed on March 16, 2011.
(Dkt. No. 30-1 at 2.)
3
1
Plaintiff contends that only Farley v. Ybanez, No. 2:10-cv-1950, counts as a strike
2
because it was dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (Dkt. No.
3
31 at 3.) Plaintiff argues that because the Ninth Circuit orders did not include the plain language
4
set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the denials of these two appeals cannot serve as strikes. In
5
addition, plaintiff contends that if the Ninth Circuit merely affirmed a district court decision that
6
was dismissed for one of the reasons stated in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the appeal cannot serve as a
7
separate strike, citing Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1120-21, and Tafari v. Hues, 473 F.3d 440, 442-44
8
(2d Cir. 2007) (holding an appeal dismissed as premature was not a strike). (Dkt. No. 31 at 4.)
9
In reply, defendants argue that the appeals in Ybanez and Capot count as strikes
10
because the Ninth Circuit’s determination that the questions raised on appeal were insubstantial
11
applies the same standard as the standard applied in determining an appeal is frivolous. (Dkt.
12
No. 32 at 2.) Defendants cite two district court cases where summary affirmances on appeal
13
were counted as strikes. See Thomas v. Felker, 2012 WL 1355764 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2012) (in
14
summary affirmance, “the Ninth Circuit effectively deemed plaintiff’s appeal to be meritless,
15
making this appeal a second strike pursuant to § 1915(g)”); see also Hollis v. Downing, 2010 WL
16
5115196 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2010) (strike counted when judgment was affirmed after appellant
17
failed to “show cause why the judgment challenged in this appeal should not be summarily
18
affirmed”).
19
C. Analysis
20
First, plaintiff’s reliance on Tafari is unavailing because none of plaintiff’s
21
appeals were dismissed as prematurely-filed. The appeal in Ybanez was timely filed after
22
judgment was entered in the district court. Id. While the appeal in Capot was interlocutory, the
23
appeal was a timely appeal of the denial of preliminary injunctive relief.
24
However, in both of plaintiff’s appeals, the Ninth Circuit stated that the questions
25
raised on appeal were determined to be insubstantial and the judgment was summarily affirmed.
26
Neither party cited a Ninth Circuit case addressing whether such a ruling falls within the
4
1
frivolous, malicious, or failure to state a claim categories expressly provided in 28 U.S.C.
2
§ 1915(g).
3
Defendants’ reliance on Felker, 2012 WL 1355764, is unavailing because the
4
district court subsequently amended its ruling to find the appeal was not a strike. Thomas v.
5
Felker, 2012 WL 2116406 (E.D. Cal. June 11, 2012). The district court stated that:
6
7
8
9
10
11
upon further review, it is not clear whether this appeal should be
construed as a strike under existing Ninth Circuit law. See O'Neal
v. Price, 531 F.3d 1146, 1155, n.9 (9th Cir. 2008) (observing that
“actions dismissed for procedural defects are not necessarily strikes
under § 1915(g), though they may constitute strikes under certain
circumstances.”). Thus, in these amended findings, the
undersigned will not construe this appeal as a strike.
2012 WL 2116406 at *4.
Defendants’ reliance on Hollis is also unavailing. Defendants’ description of the
12
court’s ruling on the appeal was incomplete. While the district court noted that Hollis’ appeal
13
was dismissed for failure to prosecute, and Hollis was directed to show cause why the judgment
14
challenged in the appeal should not be summarily dismissed, the district court also reviewed the
15
underlying district court rulings and held that:
16
17
the district court expressly found plaintiff's appeal was frivolous,
which is a strike under the plain language of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Therefore, this court finds that plaintiff's appeal filed in Hollis v.
Villanueus, 09-15523 (9th Cir.), is a strike under § 1915(g).
18
19
Hollis, 2010 WL 5115196 at *5. In the instant case, there is no court ruling, district or appellate,
20
that states plaintiff’s appeals were frivolous.
21
Here, although the Ninth Circuit found the questions on appeal to be
22
“insubstantial,” the court “summarily affirmed” the district court’s judgment. Adepegba, 103
23
F.3d at 387; O'Neal, 531 F.3d at 1155 n.9. The Ninth Circuit did not expressly find the appeals
24
to be frivolous. Therefore, it is not clear that the Ybanez or Capot appeals may be construed as
25
strikes. Felker, 2012 WL 2116406 at *4. This court will not construe the appeals to be strikes
26
under § 1915(g).
5
1
Because plaintiff sustained only one § 1915(g) strike, in Farley v. Ybanez, No.
2
2:10-cv-1950, the court recommends that defendants’ motion to revoke plaintiff’s in forma
3
pauperis status be denied.
4
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court
5
is directed to randomly assign a district judge to this action.
6
IT IS RECOMMENDED that:
7
1. Defendants’ May 22, 2012 motion (dkt. no. 30) be denied; and
8
2. Defendants be directed to file an answer within fourteen days from any order
9
by the district court adopting the instant findings and recommendations.
10
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District
11
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen
12
days after being served with these findings and recommendations, the parties may file written
13
objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s
14
Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be filed and served
15
within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file
16
objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.
17
Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
18
DATED: July 25, 2012
19
20
_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
21
22
farl1830.mtd
23
24
25
26
6
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?