Hardney v. Turner et al

Filing 41

ORDER, FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 1/20/2017 ORDERING defendants' 31 request for judicial notice is GRANTED; and defendants' 32 motion for an extension of time to file a response is GRAN TED. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that defendants' 30 motion to revoke plaintiff's IFP status be granted; plaintiff's IFP status be revoked; and plaintiff be required to furnish the remainder owed of the statutory filing fee of  6;350.00 to proceed with this action and be admonished that failure to pay the filing fee within 30 days of any order adopting this recommendation will result in dismissal of this action. Referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.; Objections to F&R due within 14 days.(Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOHN HARDNEY,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:14-cv-2962 MCE DB P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

L. TURNER, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se, and in forma pauperis (“IFP”), with an

18

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the court is defendants’ motion to revoke plaintiff’s IFP

19

status on the grounds that the dismissals of at least three prior actions filed by plaintiff qualify as

20

“strikes” against him pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). For the reasons set out below, this court

21

finds plaintiff’s IFP status should be revoked.

22
23

BACKGROUND
In his complaint filed December 23, 2014, plaintiff alleges that defendants violated his rights

24

to privacy, to be free from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment, and to

25

due process. (ECF No. 1.) In March 2016, plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma

26

pauperis (“IFP”) and the court found service of plaintiff’s complaint appropriate on the

27

defendants named. (ECF No. 20.) In June 2016, defendants filed the present motion to revoke

28

plaintiff’s IFP status. (ECF No. 30.) Defendants contend that four of plaintiff’s prior actions
1

1

were dismissed on the grounds that they failed to state a claim upon which relief could be

2

granted. Therefore, defendants argue, plaintiff has accrued at least three strikes under the IFP

3

statute and is not entitled to proceed IFP in this case.

4
5

MOTION TO REVOKE IFP
I.

In Forma Pauperis Statute

6

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) is part of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). The

7

PLRA was intended to eliminate frivolous lawsuits, and its main purpose was to address the

8

overwhelming number of prisoner lawsuits. Cano v. Taylor, 739 F.3d 1214, 1219 (9th Cir. 2014).

9

Section 1915(g) provides:

10
11
12
13

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.

14

The plain language of the statute makes clear that a prisoner is precluded from bringing a civil

15

action or an appeal in forma pauperis if the prisoner has previously brought three frivolous

16

actions or appeals (or any combination thereof totaling three). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d

17

1176, 1178 (9th Cir. 1999). Section 1915(g) should be used to deny a prisoner's IFP status “only

18

when, after careful evaluation of the order dismissing [each] action, and other relevant

19

information, the district court determines that [each] action was dismissed because it was

20

frivolous, malicious or failed to state a claim.” Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir.

21

2005); see also Knapp v. Hogan, 738 F.3d 1106, 1109 (9th Cir. 2013) (To determine whether a

22

dismissal qualifies as a strike, a “reviewing court looks to the dismissing court's action and the

23

reasons underlying it.”).

24

This “three strikes rule” was part of “a variety of reforms designed to filter out the bad

25

claims [filed by prisoners] and facilitate consideration of the good.” Coleman v. Tollefson, 135 S.

26

Ct. 1759, 1762 (2015) (quoting Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 204 (2007)). If a prisoner has “three

27

strikes” under § 1915(g), the prisoner is barred from proceeding IFP unless he meets the

28

exception for imminent danger of serious physical injury. See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d
2

1

1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2007). To meet this exception, the complaint of a “three-strikes” prisoner

2

must plausibly allege that the prisoner was faced with imminent danger of serious physical injury

3

at the time his complaint was filed. See Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1189 (9th Cir.

4

2015); Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d at 1055. Plaintiff has not alleged imminent danger in the

5

present case.
Defendants have the burden to “produce documentary evidence that allows the district

6
7

court to conclude that the plaintiff has filed at least three prior actions that were dismissed

8

because they were ‘frivolous, malicious or fail[ed] to state a claim.’” Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d

9

at 1120 (quoting § 1915(g)). Once defendants meet their initial burden, it is plaintiff's burden to

10

explain why a prior dismissal should not count as a strike. Id. If the plaintiff fails to meet that

11

burden, plaintiff's IFP status should be revoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Id.

12

II.

13

Analysis
Defendants contend the following cases count as strikes for purposes of § 1915(g): (1)

14

Hardney v. Villegas, 1:01-cv-05856 REC HGB (E.D. Cal.); (2) Hardney v. Simons, 5:02-cv-

15

00062 JW (N.D. Cal.); (3) DeArmond v. Kane, 5:01-cv-20217 JW (N.D. Cal.); and (4) Hardney

16

v. Haws, 2:11-cv-07427 SVW ARG (C.D. Cal.). The court examines each case to determine

17

whether its dismissal was based on the grounds that the action was frivolous, malicious, or failed

18

to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

19

A. Hardney v. Villegas, 1:01-cv-05856 REC HGB (E.D. Cal.)

20

In 2003, the district court dismissed plaintiff’s action because it “failed to state a claim

21

upon which relief can be granted” under § 1983. (Ex. E to Req. for Judicial Notice (ECF No. 31

22

at 15-28).1) Specifically, the court found that plaintiff’s claims would, if successful, affect the

23

duration of plaintiff’s confinement and should therefore have been brought in a habeas petition

24
1

25
26
27
28

Defendants request the court take judicial notice of printouts from the federal court electronic
records system listing plaintiff’s various filings in the federal courts in California and of the
decisions from the prior cases discussed herein. On a motion to dismiss, this court may take
judicial notice of “matters of public record” pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201. MGIC
Indem. Corp. v. Weisman, 803 F.2d 500, 504 (9th Cir. 1986); see also Lee v. City of Los
Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 689-90 (9th Cir. 2001). Therefore, the court will grant defendants’
request.
3

1

under Heck v. Humphreys, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994) and Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 646-

2

48 (1997). Defendants argue that a dismissal under Heck constitutes a strike.

3

1.

Dismissals under Heck v. Humphrey

4

The Supreme Court has held that habeas corpus is the exclusive remedy for a state

5

prisoner who challenges the fact or duration of his confinement and seeks immediate or speedier

6

release, even though such a claim may come within the “literal terms of §1983.” Preiser v.

7

Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 488-90 (1973). In Heck, the Court applied the reasoning of Preiser to a

8

§ 1983 claim for damages. Thus, a plaintiff cannot maintain a § 1983 action to recover damages

9

for “harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render [his] conviction or sentence

10

invalid” unless his conviction and sentence have previously been “reversed on direct appeal,

11

expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal . . . , or called into question by a

12

federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.” Heck, 512 U.S. at 486–87. The Supreme

13

Court has applied Heck’s bar to § 1983 claims which implicate the validity of a prison

14

disciplinary sanction, as well as of an underlying conviction. See Edwards, 520 U.S. at 646-48

15

(claim for damages and declaratory relief challenging validity of procedures used to deprive

16

prisoner of good time credits is not cognizable under § 1983).

17
18

2.

When Does a Heck Dismissal Count as a Strike?

In June 2016, when defendants filed the present motion, the Ninth Circuit Court of

19

Appeals had not addressed the question of whether a dismissal under Heck qualified as a strike

20

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d at 1052 n.2. In August 2016,

21

the Ninth Circuit addressed this question in Washington v. Los Angeles Cty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 833

22

F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2016). On November 9, 2016, the court ordered the parties to brief the

23

applicability of Washington to the district court’s dismissal of Hardney v. Villegas. They have

24

done so. (See ECF Nos. 39, 40.)

25

The court in Washington held that a Heck dismissal does not categorically count as a

26

dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and thus

27

does not necessarily count as a strike under § 1915(g). 833 F.3d at 1055. The Washington court

28

held that a Heck dismissal constitutes a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal “when the pleadings present an
4

1

‘obvious bar to securing relief’ under Heck.” Id. at 1056 (quoting ASARCO, LLC v. Union Pac.

2

R.R. Co., 765 F.3d 999, 1004 (9th Cir. 2014)). The court clarified that holding by explaining that

3

this standard would apply to count as a strike only where the entire action was dismissed for a

4

qualifying reason under the PLRA. Id. at 1055, 1057 (citing Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d at

5

1054).

6

In Washington, the court considered whether one of plaintiff Washington’s prior

7

proceedings constituted a strike under § 1915(g). In that prior § 1983 proceeding, Washington

8

sought a “recall” of his allegedly unlawful sentence enhancement, essentially an injunction, and

9

damages for his additional year in prison based on the enhancement. Id. at 1057. The

10

Washington court found that the request for injunctive relief sounded in habeas. Id. A habeas

11

action is not a “civil action” within the purview of the PLRA and its dismissal does not trigger a

12

strike. Id. (citing Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d at 1122-23). Therefore, the dismissal of

13

Washington’s prior suit did not amount to a strike because “the entire action was not dismissed

14

for one of the qualifying reasons enumerated by” § 1915(g). Id.

15
16

3.

Does the Heck Dismissal in Hardney v. Villegas Qualify as a Strike?

In Hardney v. Villegas, plaintiff sought damages and declaratory relief for alleged

17

violations of his rights in three prison disciplinary proceedings. (See Ex. E to Req. for Judicial

18

Notice (ECF No. 31 at 15-22).) Under Washington, this court must determine whether each

19

claim for relief was dismissed for one of the qualifying reasons enumerated by § 1915(g).

20

In the first claim, Hardney alleged that he received a rules violation for evading work.

21

(Compl., Ex. A to Defs.’ Supp. Brief, ¶ 11 (ECF No. 39 at 18).) Hardney pled guilty to the

22

charge, and was found guilty of a serious rules violation. Hardney was assessed a loss of thirty-

23

days good time credits he had previously earned toward his release. (Id. ¶ 14.) Hardney alleged

24

that he should have been found guilty of an administrative rules violation, rather than a serious

25

rules violation. (Id.)

26

In his second claim, Hardney alleged that he was issued a disciplinary violation for

27

masturbating during a close custody count. (Id. ¶ 20.) The disciplinary hearing was held on

28

September 30, 1996, and Hardney was found guilty of the charge and assessed ninety-days loss of
5

1

good time credits. (Id. ¶ 24.) Hardney alleged that officers failed to investigate to discover that it

2

was his cellmate, not him, who committed the violation. Hardney alleged that he appealed the

3

finding of guilt to the “highest level available,” but the appeal was denied, and the guilty finding

4

was upheld. (Id. ¶ 26.)

5

In claim three, Hardney alleged that he was issued a disciplinary violation for making a

6

lewd sexual gesture at staff. (Id. ¶¶ 29, 30.) Hardney was later found guilty of the charge, and

7

assessed thirty-days loss of good time credits. (Id. ¶¶ 31, 32.) Hardney again “appealed the

8

charges and the guilt findings to the highest administrative level.” (Id. ¶ 33.) Hardney’s appeal

9

was again denied, and the finding of guilt was sustained. (Id.)

10

In the section of his complaint entitled “Relief Requested” in Hardney v. Villegas,

11

Hardney first sought the following “declaratory judgment[s]:” (1) that defendants charged

12

plaintiff with violations for illegal sex acts for “malicious, sadistic purposes, reckless and

13

indifferent to plaintiff’s equal protected rights, in violation of the eighth amendment and

14

contributed to and proximately caused the due process of law in violation;” and (2) that

15

defendants’ actions in conducting, and sustaining, plaintiff’s disciplinary hearings, “violated the

16

plaintiff’s rights under the due process clause.” Hardney then sought compensatory, nominal, and

17

punitive damages. Finally, he sought “such other relief as it may appear that plaintiff is entitled.”

18

(Id. at 18-20 (ECF No. 39 at 32-34).)

19

To determine whether the Heck dismissals of plaintiff’s claims in Hardney v. Villegas

20

qualify as strikes, this court must first determine whether plaintiff’s pleadings in that case

21

presented an “obvious bar to securing relief” under Heck. See Washington, 833 F.3d at 1056.

22

This court finds that they did. Plaintiff was challenging the procedures in, and therefore the

23

validity of, three disciplinary hearings. It was obvious from the face of plaintiff’s complaint that

24

his success on those challenges would necessarily imply the invalidity of the deprivation of his

25

good-time credits, and, consequently, the duration of his sentence. See Edwards, 520 U.S. at 646.

26

Therefore, it was apparent from the face of plaintiff’s complaint that it was subject to dismissal

27

based on the rule of Heck and Edwards that plaintiff must first seek habeas relief to challenge the

28

validity of these disciplinary proceedings.
6

1

The second question under Washington is whether plaintiff sought relief that sounded

2

only in habeas, creating an “intertwined” habeas/civil rights case that would not count as a strike.

3

Washington, 833 F.3d at 1057. Plaintiff’s request for damages falls squarely under Heck and

4

does not sound in habeas. Id. at 1056-57. Plaintiff also requested declaratory relief. The court in

5

Washington did not address requests for declaratory relief. However, declaratory relief does not

6

sound in habeas. Claims at the “core of habeas” are those seeking speedier release. See Skinner

7

v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 535 n. 13 (2011); see also Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 693 (2008).

8

In fact, courts have recognized that the habeas statute may not authorize relief that

9

“neither terminates custody, accelerates the future date of release from custody, nor reduces the

10

level of custody.” Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 86 (2005) (Scalia, J., concurring), cited in

11

Skinner, 562 U.S. at 535 n. 13. A request for declaratory relief seeks only a pronouncement on

12

the rights and other legal relations between interested parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 2201; see also I.B.

13

ex rel. Fife v. Facebook, Inc., 905 F. Supp. 2d 989, 1005 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (party may seek a

14

declaration under the Declaratory Judgment Act “whether or not further relief is or could be

15

sought”). It is not the injunctive-type relief available through habeas. The Ninth Circuit

16

recognized the “considerable difference between ordering a government official to conduct his

17

activities in a certain manner, and simply pronouncing that his conduct is unlawful and should be

18

corrected.” Olagues v. Russoniello, 770 F.2d 791, 803 (9th Cir. 1985) (emphasis omitted). This

19

court finds that Hardney’s request for declaratory relief in Hardney v. Villegas did not sound in

20

habeas.
This conclusion is supported by the fact that nothing in Hardney’s statement of his claims

21
22

or request for relief in Hardney v. Villegas indicated that he sought any sort of restoration of the

23

good time credits lost or other relief that could directly affect his sentence. In other words,

24

nothing about the complaint in Hardney v. Villegas sought relief sounding in habeas. Therefore,

25

the district court’s dismissal of all of plaintiff’s civil claims under Heck qualifies as a Rule

26

12(b)(6) dismissal under section 1915(g) and counts as a strike.

27

////

28

////
7

1

B. Hardney v. Simons, 5:02-cv-00062 JW (N.D. Cal.)

2

This case was dismissed in 2002 upon screening for failure to exhaust administrative

3

remedies. (Ex. F to Req. for Judicial Notice (ECF No. 31 at 32).) The failure to exhaust was

4

apparent from the face of the complaint. In that complaint, Hardney stated that he had filed a

5

grievance but had not received a response. The court found Hardney failed to exhaust his

6

administrative remedies and dismissed the complaint. (Id. at 33.) Where the failure to exhaust is

7

evident from the face of the complaint, dismissal of the case amounts to a failure to state a claim

8

under the standards of Rule 12(b)(6) and the dismissal counts as a strike under § 1915(g). See

9

Williams v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. and Rehab., No. 2:09-cv-0784 AC P, 2013 WL 2151573, at *4

10

(E.D. Cal. May 16, 2013) (dismissal for non-exhaustion at screening, on grounds that constitute

11

failure to state a claim, counts as a strike under § 1915(g) (citing Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199,

12

214-15 (2007)), findings and recom. adopted, 2013 WL 5773086 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2013); see

13

also Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 2014) (where failure to exhaust is clear on the

14

face of the complaint, a defendant may move for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6)); cf., Richey v.

15

Dahne, 807 F.3d 1202, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2015) (because determination of failure to exhaust was

16

made on summary judgment, rather than being clear on the face of the complaint, it did not

17

constitute a strike).

18

C. DeArmond2 v. Kane, 5:01-cv-20217 JW (N.D. Cal.)

19

In 2001, upon screening, the court dismissed this suit with prejudice based on plaintiff’s

20

failure to state a claim under § 1983. (Ex. G to Req. for Judicial Notice (ECF No. 31 at 40-41).)

21

Plaintiff claims this case was settled. However, plaintiff does not provide any record that the case

22

was settled. The Northern District court’s opinion dismissing that case for failure to state a claim

23

makes no mention of any settlement. (Id.) The docket for the case reflects only that it was

24

dismissed with prejudice and judgment was entered against plaintiff on September 19, 2001, the

25
2

26
27
28

Defendants assert that John DeArmond is plaintiff’s alias. Plaintiff does not contest that fact. In
a prior decision of this court, it was noted that “John DeArmond” is plaintiff’s alias and the court
was satisfied that DeArmond and plaintiff are the same person. (See Mar. 2, 2005 Find. &
Recom. in Hardney v. LaMarque, No. CIV S-04-0476 DFL KJM P, at 3 (E.D. Cal.), attached as
Ex. H to Req. for Judicial Notice (ECF No. 31 at 48).)
8

1

date the court ordered the case dismissed. (ECF No. 31 at 40-43.)

2

In DeArmond, Hardney alleged his appellate attorney violated his constitutional rights by

3

failing to promptly turn over Hardney’s legal materials. Because plaintiff did not allege a

4

deprivation of his rights by a person acting under the color of state law, the court found plaintiff

5

failed to state a claim cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Id. at 41.) The dismissal for failure to

6

state a claim constitutes a strike under § 1915(g).

7

D. Hardney v. Haws, 2:11-cv-07427 SVW ARG (C.D. Cal.)

8

Plaintiff filed this action as a habeas corpus petition. It was summarily denied because

9

plaintiff’s claims were not cognizable in habeas. (Ex. I to Req. for Judicial Notice (ECF No. 31

10

at 57).) As a general rule, the dismissal of a habeas petition does not constitute a strike.

11

Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2005). However, the Ninth Circuit has

12

recognized an exception to this rule for habeas petitions that are “little more than 42 U.S.C. §

13

1983 actions mislabeled as habeas petitions so as avoid the penalties imposed by 28 U.S.C. §

14

1915(g).” Id. at 1122 n.12. Defendants argue that exception applies here because despite being

15

advised of the difference between habeas and civil rights cases, plaintiff continued to file § 1983

16

actions as habeas petitions. Defendants cite to just one example of this supposed abuse: Hardney

17

v. Lizarraga, No. 1:15-cv-0364 AWI MJS (HC) (E.D. Cal.). According to the docket for that

18

case, an order issued June 23, 2015 dismissed the case for failure to state a claim cognizable in

19

habeas.

20

Nothing indicates that plaintiff filed Hardney v. Haws as a habeas action for the purpose

21

of evading the penalties of § 1915(g). Defendants cite to no decisions in which a habeas

22

dismissal met the exception set out in the Andrews footnote. This court has found a few cases

23

addressing the issue. In two, the courts declined to find the dismissal of a habeas petition

24

amounted to a strike absent a finding that the habeas petition was “frivolous” or brought in bad

25

faith. In 2010, a colleague in this court considered the defendants’ argument that a prior

26

dismissal of a habeas appeal should constitute a strike. In that prior case, the habeas petition was

27

dismissed without prejudice because the claims sounded in civil rights, rather than habeas. Hollis

28

v. Downing, No. 2:09-cv-3431 FCD KJN P, 2010 WL 5115196, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2010),
9

1

findings and recom. adopted, 2011 WL 590756 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2011). However, rather than

2

filing a civil rights action, the plaintiff chose to file an appeal. The court found the appeal

3

frivolous. The court in Hollis held that this finding was a strike under the plain language of §

4

1915(g). Id.; see also Thomas v. Felker, No. CIV S-09-2486 GEB CKD P, 2012 WL 1355764,

5

*3 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2012) (because dismissal of habeas petition did not indicate the petition

6

was brought in bad faith, court would not consider it a strike), findings and recom. adopted on

7

Nov. 8, 2012. But see Payne v. Fujioka, No. 1:13cv2079 AWI DLB PC, 2015 WL 4042018, *4

8

(E.D. Cal. July 1, 2015) (dismissal of mixed habeas petition considered a strike), findings and

9

recom. adopted, 2015 WL 5138090 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2015). This court agrees with the

10

decision in Hollis and Thomas that a prior habeas petition must have been labelled frivolous or

11

filed in bad faith to fall within the exception created by Andrews and qualify that dismissal as a

12

strike.

13

In the present case, plaintiff Hardney’s habeas petition was not found frivolous or

14

otherwise filed in bad faith to place it within the purview of § 1915(g). Accordingly, this court

15

finds the dismissal of Hardney v. Haws does not constitute a strike.

16
17

CONCLUSION
Plaintiff is a frequent litigant in the federal courts of California. By this court’s count,

18

plaintiff has filed over twenty-five civil rights and habeas cases in just this district in the last

19

twenty years. (See also Exs. A-D to Req. for Judicial Notice (ECF No. 31 at 5-11).) Defendants

20

have shown that prior to November 11, 2013, when plaintiff filed this action three cases had been

21

resolved against plaintiff on the grounds that he failed to state a claim upon which relief could be

22

granted. Each of those dismissals qualifies as a strike under the PLRA. Accordingly, plaintiff’s

23

IFP status should be revoked.

24

Defendants argue that revocation of plaintiff’s IFP status should result in dismissal of this

25

case. Several courts have so held. See Dupree v. Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234, 1236 (11th Cir. 2002)

26

(filing fee must be paid at the time suit filed; therefore, when IFP revoked, case should be

27

dismissed); In re Alea, 286 F.3d 378, 380 (6th Cir. 2002). While the Ninth Circuit has dismissed

28

an appeal under § 1915(g) and has affirmed dismissals, it does not appear that the court has, in a
10

1

published opinion, addressed the issue of whether or not dismissal is required. See Tierney v.

2

Kupers, 128 F.3d 1310, 1311-12 (9th Cir. 1997) (affirming district court’s dismissal of complaint

3

based on denial of IFP); Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1182 (9th Cir. 1999) (dismissing

4

appeal because plaintiff had three strikes). The court has, however, come close to rejecting the

5

statement in Dupree that the filing fee must be paid at the time the action is initiated. In an

6

unpublished opinion, the Ninth Circuit held that where plaintiff paid the filing fee after filing his

7

action but prior to dismissal, the issue of his IFP status became moot and the dismissal was in

8

error. See Funtanilla v. Tristan, 234 Fed. Appx. 505, 506 (9th Cir. 2007) (after magistrate judge

9

issued recommendation that plaintiff’s IFP status be revoked, but before district court adopted

10

that recommendation, plaintiff paid filing fee). The court distinguished Dupree by stating that the

11

plaintiff in that case had paid the filing fee after the case was dismissed. Id. The court did not

12

address directly the statement in Dupree that a prisoner “must pay the filing fee at the time he

13

initiates the suit.” Dupree, 234 F.3d at 1236 (emphasis in original).

14

Some judges in this district, relying on the reasoning of Dupree, followed suit and

15

dismissed a case following revocation of IFP. See Saif’ullah v. Sisto, No. 2:08-CV-1209 RSM,

16

2011 WL 1235197, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2011) (collecting cases and concluding that this

17

district has adopted the Dupree approach). However, other judges have not. A number of judges

18

in this district permitted plaintiffs the opportunity to pay the full filing fee to proceed with the

19

action. See, e.g., Bontemps v. Sotak, No. 2:09-cv-2115 MCE EFB P, 2015 WL 812360, at *7

20

(E.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2015), findings and recom. adopted, 2015 WL 1469870 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 30,

21

2015); Rider v. Parente, No. CIV S-09-0637 MCE DAD P, 2011 WL 2745986, at *5 n.7 (E.D.

22

Cal. July 14, 2011) (noting the holding in Dupree but finding it is not binding on this court),

23

findings and recom. adopted on Sept. 12, 2011; Harper v. Cal. Dept. of Corr., No. CIV S-09-1969

24

GEB KJN P, 2010 WL 2348735, at *5 (E.D. Cal. June 8, 2010), findings and recom. adopted,

25

2010 WL 3715132 (Sept. 15, 2010); Hollis, 2010 WL 5155196, at *5. This court finds it

26

appropriate and fair to permit plaintiff an opportunity to pay the fee and proceed with this action.

27

If he fails to do so, the case should be dismissed.

28

////
11

1
2

For the foregoing reasons, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as
follows:

3

1. Defendants’ June 14, 2016 Request for Judicial Notice (ECF No. 31) is granted; and

4

2. Defendants’ June 20, 2016 Motion for an Extension of Time to File a Response (ECF

5

No. 32) is granted.

6

It is further RECOMMENDED that

7

1.

8
9

Defendants’ June 14, 2016 Motion to Revoke Plaintiff’s In Forma Pauperis Status
(ECF No. 30) be granted;

2. Plaintiff’s IFP status be revoked; and

10

3. Plaintiff be required to furnish the remainder owed of the statutory filing fee of $350

11

to proceed with this action and be admonished that failure to pay the filing fee within

12

thirty days of any order adopting this recommendation will result in dismissal of this

13

action.

14

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

15

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days

16

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

17

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. The document should be captioned

18

“Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the

19

objections shall be filed and served within seven days after service of the objections. The parties

20

are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of the

21

right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

22

Dated: January 20, 2017

23
24
25
26
27

DLB:9
DLB1/prisoner-civil rights/hard2962.ifp

28
12