Hampton v. Virga et al
Filing
23
ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 08/15/18 GRANTING 22 Request for Judicial Notice. Also, RECOMMENDING that Hampton v. Harrison, No. 2:06-cv-5418 (C.D. Cal. Sep. 14, 2006) and Hampton v. Ayers, No. 2:07-cv-1268 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2007) be declared strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Hampton v. Schwarzenegger, No. 2:09-cv-3432 (C.D. Cal. May 22, 2009) be declared not a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), Defendant Agnones motion to revoke plaintiffs in forma pauperis status 21 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) be DENIED. Motion to Revoke Plaintiff's IFP Status 21 referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JAMES HAMPTON,
12
13
14
15
No. 2:13-cv-0923 JAM DB P
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
TIM VIRGA et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
18
§ 1983 and was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 on
19
March 21, 2014. (ECF No. 7). This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302
20
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
21
Plaintiff filed his second amended complaint on October 26, 2015. (ECF No. 13).
22
Defendant Agnone was served on November 11, 2017. (See ECF No. 18). On January 26, 2018,
23
defendant Agnone filed a motion to revoke plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status pursuant to 28
24
U.S.C. § 1915(g) along with a supporting request for judicial notice. (ECF Nos. 21 et seq., 22).
25
Specifically, he contends that while incarcerated, plaintiff has brought at least three actions that
26
were dismissed as frivolous, or malicious, or for failure to state a claim, and that as a result,
27
plaintiff is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis under the statute. (See ECF No. 21-1 at 4-5;
28
see also ECF No. 22 at 2). Plaintiff has not opposed the motion. Nevertheless, for the reasons
1
1
stated herein, the court will grant the judicial notice request and deny the motion to revoke
2
plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status.
3
I.
RELEVANT LAW
4
A. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g): Three Strikes Rule
5
Section 1915(g) states:
In 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.
6
7
8
9
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
“It is well-settled that, in determining a [Section] 1915(g) ‘strike,’ the reviewing court
looks to the dismissing court’s action and the reasons underlying it.” Knapp v. Hogan, 738 F.3d
1106, 1109 (9th Cir. 2013) (brackets added) (citation omitted). “[Section] 1915(g) should be used
to deny a prisoner’s in forma pauperis status only when, after careful evaluation of the order
dismissing an action, and other relevant information, the district court determines that the action
was dismissed because it was frivolous, malicious or failed to state a claim.” Andrews v. King,
398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2006) (brackets added).
B. Judicial Notice
“A court shall take judicial notice if requested by a party and supplied with the necessary
information.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(d). “A judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to
reasonable dispute in that it is either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the
trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy
cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(1)-(2). A court may take judicial notice
of its own records in other cases. See United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980).
C. Transfer of Case
Generally speaking, when a court decides upon a rule of law, that decision should continue
to govern the same issues in subsequent stages in the same case. Christianson v. Colt Industries
Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 815-16 (1988) (citation omitted). Moreover, “when an action is
28
2
1
transferred, it remains what it was; all further proceedings in it are merely referred to another
2
tribunal, leaving untouched what has been already done.” Danner v. Himmelfarb, 858 F.2d 515,
3
521 (9th Cir. 1988) (brackets omitted) (quoting Magnetic Eng’g & Mfg. Co. v. Dings Mfg. Co.,
4
178 F.2d 866, 868 (2nd Cir. 1950)).
5
D. Failure to Exhaust Resulting in Failure to State a Claim
6
The failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense, and a failure to exhaust being clear on the
7
face of a complaint is rare. See Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1166, 1169 (9th Cir. 2014). If a
8
court needs to review documents in addition to the complaint in order to establish failure to
9
exhaust, a dismissal of that case does not constitute a strike. See, e.g., El-Shaddai v. Zamora, 833
10
F.3d 1036, 1044 (9th Cir. 2016). If, however, failure to exhaust is clear on the face of a pleading,
11
it may be considered a failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under Federal
12
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Albino, 747 F.3d at 1169 (“[I]n those rare cases where a
13
failure to exhaust is clear from the face of the complaint, a defendant may successfully move to
14
dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.”); see generally El-Shaddai, 833 F.3d at
15
1044 (“[A] complaint may be subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) when an affirmative
16
defense . . . appears on its face.”). Dismissals under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim may
17
constitute a strike within the meaning of the PLRA. Washington v. Los Angeles County Sheriff’s
18
Dep’t, 833 F.3d 1048, 1055 (9th Cir. 2016) (citing Knapp, 738 F.3d at 1109).
19
II.
DISMISSAL HISTORY OF ALLEGED “STRIKE” CASES
20
In support of the motion to revoke plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status, defendant Agnone
21
identifies the following three cases plaintiff has filed in the past that he contends were dismissed
22
in such a way that they constitute “strikes” under Section 1915(g). They are: (1) Hampton v.
23
Harrison, No. 2:06-cv-5418 (C.D. Cal. Sep. 14, 2006) (“Harrison”); (2) Hampton v. Ayers, No.
24
2:07-cv-1268 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2007) (“Ayers”), and (3) Hampton v. Schwarzenegger, No.
25
2:09-cv-3432 (C.D. Cal. May 22, 2009) (“Schwarzenegger”).1
26
1
27
28
Because the court has reviewed and will reference documents from these cases that are not
included in defendant Agnone’s request for judicial notice pleading, the court will cite directly to
the documents in the dockets of these cases instead of to the copies in defendant Agnone’s
request for judicial notice.
3
1
A. Hampton v. Harrison, No. 2:06-cv-5418 (C.D. Cal. Sep. 14, 2006)
2
In Harrison, both the reasoning and the language behind its dismissal were clear. The court
3
denied plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis on the ground that plaintiff had failed to
4
state a claim upon which relief could be granted. (See Harrison, ECF No. 2).
5
B. Hampton v. Ayers, No. 2:07-cv-1268 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2007)
6
In Ayers, when dismissing the case, the court first found plaintiff’s complaint had no
7
cognizable claims. (See Ayers, ECF Nos. 12, 17). At that time, the court gave plaintiff the
8
opportunity to amend his complaint. (See Ayers, ECF No. 12). Plaintiff, however, failed to
9
amend, and as a result, the court dismissed the case for failure to prosecute. (See Ayers, ECF
10
Nos. 17, 19, 20) (citing to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)).
11
C. Hampton v. Schwarzenegger, No. 2:09-cv-3432 (C.D. Cal. May 22, 2009)
12
In Schwarzenegger, plaintiff’s initial pleading in the Northern District, filed May 4, 2009,
13
was simply a motion for a preliminary injunction, nothing more. (See Schwarzenegger, ECF No.
14
1). It was not accompanied by a complaint. (See Schwarzenegger, ECF No. 1). As a result, at the
15
time it was filed, plaintiff was instructed by the Northern District to file a complaint as well as an
16
in forma pauperis application within thirty days. (See Schwarzenegger, ECF No. 2, 3).
17
Shortly thereafter, on May 11, 2009, the case was ordered transferred to the Central
18
District, and plaintiff’s preliminary injunction motion was lodged in that district. (See
19
Schwarzenegger, ECF Nos. 4-6 et seq.). On May 22, 2009, in a form order, the Central District
20
adopted its magistrate judge’s recommendation that plaintiff’s request to file the action without
21
prepayment of the full filing fee be denied in part because “no complaint [had] been filed” and
22
because “plaintiff [had] not exhausted his administrative remedies.” 2 (See Schwarzenegger, ECF
23
No. 7) (brackets added).
24
////
25
////
26
2
27
28
The court also listed: (1) an inadequate showing of indigency; (2) plaintiff’s failure to authorize
disbursements from his prison trust account to pay the filing fee, and (3) plaintiff’s failure to
provide a certified copy of the trust fund statement for the last six months as additional reasons
for denying plaintiff’s in forma pauperis request. (See Schwarzenegger, ECF No. 7).
4
1
III.
ANALYSIS
2
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b), the court takes judicial notice of the
3
documents filed in support of defendant Agnone’s motion to revoke plaintiff’s in forma pauperis
4
status. (See ECF No. 22). The court, sua sponte, also takes judicial notice of all documents on the
5
docket in Harrison, Avery, and Schwarzenegger that are not included in defendant Agnone’s
6
judicial notice request. Therefore, documents therein that are relevant to address defendant
7
Agnone’s motion to revoke will be considered in the court’s analysis.
8
A review of these cases indicate that the reasons that Harrison and Ayers were dismissed
9
clearly meet the “frivolous,” “malicious,” or “failure to state a claim” standards listed in Section
10
1915(g). However, the reasons that Schwarzenegger was dismissed do not clearly fall within these
11
parameters. This fact leads the court to recommend denial of the instant motion.
12
A. Harrison Is a Strike Under Section 1915(g)
13
With respect to Harrison, plaintiff was denied in forma pauperis status based on his failure
14
to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. (See Harrison, ECF No. 2). The Ninth Circuit
15
has stated that such a finding may constitute a strike for purposes of Section 1915(g). See O’Neal
16
v. Price, 531 F.3d 1146, 1153 (9th Cir. 2008) (stating denial of in forma pauperis status on the
17
grounds that plaintiff has failed to state a claim counts as a strike for purposes of Section 1915(g)).
18
Therefore, defendant Agnone’s assertion that the Harrison dismissal constitutes a strike (see ECF
19
No. 21-1 at 4-5) is correct.
20
B. Ayers Is a Strike Under Section 1915(g)
21
In Ayers, even though its final dispositive order cited a failure to prosecute as the reason
22
for the dismissal of plaintiff’s case (see Ayers, ECF Nos. 17, 19, 20), such a dismissal may also be
23
considered a strike for Section 1915(g) purposes, given that it “[rings] the [Prison Litigation
24
Reform Act’s] bells of frivolous, malicious, or failure to state a claim.” Harris v. Mangum, 863
25
F.3d 1133, 1142 (9th Cir. 2017) (brackets added) (citation omitted). In other words, the Ayers
26
court’s ultimate dismissal for failure to prosecute does not negate its underlying, initial finding that
27
plaintiff’s complaint had no cognizable claims or rather, failed to state a claim (see generally
28
Ayers, ECF No. 12). See Harris, 863 F.3d at 1142 (stating style or procedural posture of dismissal
5
1
is immaterial when determining whether dismissal counts as strike); see generally Knapp, 738 F.3d
2
at 1110 (stating complaint dismissed for failure to amend after initially being dismissed as
3
incomprehensible draws inference plaintiff could not state a claim). Therefore, the dismissal in
4
Ayers also falls within the parameters of Section 1915(g) and counts as a strike.
5
C. Schwarzenegger Is Not a Strike Under Section 1915(g)
6
As for Schwarzenegger, the court finds that the dismissal is not a strike. First, the reasons
7
behind the Central District’s denial of in forma pauperis status which also served as a dismissal of
8
plaintiff’s case are convoluted. On one hand, the court stated the dismissal was because plaintiff
9
had not filed a complaint.3 (See Schwarzenegger, ECF No. 7). On the other hand, the Central
10
District then hypothetically characterized plaintiff’s preliminary injunction motion as a complaint
11
in order to support a denial of plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status. (See Schwarzenegger, ECF No.
12
7). Specifically, the court ultimately found that “on its face,” the “complaint” showed that plaintiff
13
“[had] not exhausted his administrative remedies, given his apparent failure to seek relief at the
14
second and third levels of the administrative process.” (See Schwarzenegger, ECF No. 7)
15
(brackets added).
16
Second, although an affirmative defense like failure to exhaust may be interpreted as a
17
failure to state a claim, see Albino, 747 F.3d at 1169; see generally El-Shaddai, 833 F.3d at 1044,
18
and a dismissal for failure to state a claim may properly be deemed a strike under Section 1915(g)
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
3
With respect to this finding, it should be noted that on May 4, 2009, the same day plaintiff filed
in federal court, the Northern District granted plaintiff thirty days to perfect the preliminary
injunction action via the filing of a complaint. (See Schwarzenegger, ECF Nos. 2, 3). However,
upon transfer of the case, the Central District did not abide by this ruling. Instead, within eleven
days of receiving plaintiff’s case, the court denied plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status and closed
the matter. (See Schwarzenegger, ECF Nos. 4-7) (transferring case on May 13, 2009 and
dismissing case on May 22, 2009). This decision does not align with the court’s traditional
leanings towards comity, namely, to defer to a prior court’s decisions and orders. See generally
Christianson, 486 U.S. at 815-16; see also Danner, 858 F.2d at 521.
This court does not opine as to whether the Central District’s decision not to follow
through with the Northern District’s order was a correct one. This fact is only mentioned to
further demonstrate the lack of clarity behind the Central District’s decision to dismiss plaintiff’s
action. Therefore, these findings should not be used to discount or call into question the final
outcome in Schwarzenegger.
28
6
1
(see generally Washington, 833 F.3d at 1055), a review of plaintiff’s preliminary injunction
2
motion and the rest of the Schwarzenegger docket does not provide a clear indication that plaintiff
3
failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. On the contrary, as shown below it indicates that
4
this finding of fact by the Central District is unsupported by the record.
In the motion, plaintiff does state that prison officials “[had] refused to log grievances or
5
6
complaints against fellow officers.” (See Schwarzenegger, ECF No. 1 at 2) (brackets added).
7
However, this is all plaintiff states that is even remotely close to the issue of whether plaintiff had
8
completed the administrative exhaustion process. Nothing else in the motion addresses whether
9
plaintiff had exhausted (see generally Schwarzenegger, ECF No. 1), and defendant Agnone points
10
to no other documents on the docket that do so, either (see generally ECF No. 21 et seq.). 4 Thus,
11
the Central District’s finding that plaintiff had failed to exhaust (see Schwarzenegger, ECF No. 7)
12
is unsupported by the record. As such, its subsequent dismissal of the case cannot be considered a
13
strike pursuant to Section 1915(g).
14
In sum, plaintiff’s preliminary injunction motion does not show on its face that plaintiff
15
had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies which would allow for dismissal for failure to
16
state a claim under El-Shaddai and Albino. For these reasons, the court declines to consider the
17
Central District’s dismissal of Schwarzenegger a strike under Section 1915(g). Therefore,
18
defendant Agnone’s argument that plaintiff is a three-strikes litigant pursuant to Section 1915(g)
19
and that as a result, plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status should be revoked because he failed to
20
allege that he was in imminent danger of serious physical harm at the time he filed his initial
21
complaint, fails. Consequently, it shall be recommended that: (1) Harrison and Ayers be
22
declared strikes; (2) Schwarzenegger be declared not a strike, and (3) the motion to revoke
23
plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status be denied.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant Agnone’s request for judicial
24
25
notice (ECF No. 22) is GRANTED.
26
4
27
28
Indeed, it appears that the court may have mistakenly taken another inmate’s sworn affidavit
that was attached to plaintiff’s motion as plaintiff’s own declaration. (See Schwarzenegger, ECF
No. 1 at 5) (affidavit by inmate Calvin Newborn stating prison officials had failed to process a
grievance of his at the second level of appeal).
7
1
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that:
2
1. Hampton v. Harrison, No. 2:06-cv-5418 (C.D. Cal. Sep. 14, 2006) and Hampton v.
3
Ayers, No. 2:07-cv-1268 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2007) be declared strikes under 28 U.S.C. §
4
1915(g);
5
6
7
8
2. Hampton v. Schwarzenegger, No. 2:09-cv-3432 (C.D. Cal. May 22, 2009) be declared
not a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and
3. Defendant Agnone’s motion to revoke plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status (ECF No.
21) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) be DENIED.
9
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
10
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
11
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
12
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
13
Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the
14
objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The
15
parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to
16
appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
17
Dated: August 15, 2018
18
19
20
21
22
DLB:13
DB/ORDERS/ORDERS.PRISONER.CIVIL RIGHTS/hamp0923.1915g.ifp
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
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?