Wilson v. California Medical Facility et al
Filing
38
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota on 7/29/2020 RECOMMENDING that: 1) Defendant's Motion to Revoke IFP Status (ECF No. 27 ) be granted; 2) Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Counterclaim (E CF No. 35 ) be granted; and 3) Plaintiff be required to pay the full filing fee within 30 days of the date of the District Judge's order adopting these Findings and Recommendations. Referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations. (Tupolo, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
DAVID W. WILSON,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
No. 2:16-CV-1547-MCE-DMC-P
v.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
MICHAEL C. SMITH, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to
17
18
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court are defendants’ motion to revoke plaintiff’s in forma
19
pauperis status (ECF No. 27) and defendants’ motion to strike plaintiff’s counterclaim (ECF No.
20
35).
21
DISCUSSION
22
Motion to Revoke Plaintiff’s In Forma Pauperis Status
23
A.
24
The PLRA’s “three strikes” provision, found at 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), provides as
25
26
27
28
follows:
In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action . . . under this section if the
prisoner has, on three or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or
detained . . ., brought an action . . . in a court of the United States that was
dismissed on the ground that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under
1
1
imminent danger of serious physical injury.
2
Id.
3
Thus, when a prisoner plaintiff has had three or more prior actions dismissed for
4
one of the reasons set forth in the statute, such “strikes” preclude the prisoner from proceeding in
5
forma pauperis unless the imminent danger exception applies. Dismissed habeas petitions do not
6
count as “strikes” under § 1915(g). See Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2005).
7
Where, however, a dismissed habeas action was merely a disguised civil rights action, the district
8
court may conclude that it counts as a “strike.” See id. at n.12.
1.
9
A review of the court’s records reflects that plaintiff has had three or more cases
10
11
Three Strikes
dismissed as “strikes” under § 1915(g).1 Three such cases are:
12
a. Wilson v. Schwartz, et. al, No. 2:05-CV-1649-GEB-CMK-P (E.D. Cal.
13
September 26, 2006), ECF No. 24 (Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations to dismiss
14
without leave to amend), No. 26 (District Judge’s order adopting findings and recommendations),
15
(see ECF No. 27-2, RFJN Ex. 1).
b. Wilson v. Veal, et. al., No. 2:06-CV-0067 (E.D. Cal. May 8, 2007), ECF
16
17
No. 9 (Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations to dismiss without leave to amend),
18
ECF No. 11 (District Judge’s order adopting findings and recommendations), ECF No. 17 (Ninth
19
Circuit order affirming dismissal without leave to amend). (see No. 27-2, RFJN Ex. 2).
c. Wilson v. Dovey, et. al., 2:06-CV-1032 (E.D. Cal. December 20, 2006),
20
21
ECF No. 11 (Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations to dismiss without leave to
22
amend), ECF No. 13 (District Judge’s order adopting findings and recommendations) (see ECF
23
No. 27-2, RFJN Ex. 4).
24
///
25
26
27
28
1
The court may take judicial notice pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201 of
matters of public record. See U.S. v. 14.02 Acres of Land, 530 F.3d 883, 894 (9th Cir. 2008).
Thus, this court may take judicial notice of state court records, see Kasey v. Molybdenum Corp.
of America, 336 F.2d 560, 563 (9th Cir. 1964), as well as its own court records, see Chandler v.
U.S., 378 F.2d 906, 909 (9th Cir. 1967).
2
Plaintiff’s opposition to defendants’ motion to revoke IFP status is poorly written
1
2
and difficult to understand. See ECF No. 31. However, plaintiff appears to argue that his previous
3
cases do not count as strikes because they alleged the type of inadequate treatment discussed in
4
two presently ongoing class action cases. See ECF No. 31, pg. 3. Plaintiff’s argument is
5
unsupported. Plaintiff’s previous cases are unrelated to the ongoing class actions; thus, the
6
ongoing class action suits do not alter the fact that plaintiff’s previous suits count as strikes.
7
Further, plaintiff already had far more than three strikes prior to the commencement of the class
8
action in question. See ECF No. 27-1, pg. 4 (listing plaintiff’s previously dismissed suits prior to
9
2009); Coleman v. Schwarzenegger, 922 F.Supp.2d 882 (E.D. Cal 2009) (the onset of the class
10
action litigation plaintiff references). Numerous courts have already refused to allow plaintiff to
11
litigate in forma pauperis because plaintiff is a three-strike litigant. See ECF No. 27-2, RFJN Ex.
12
12-26.
13
2.
14
Plaintiff contends that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury such that
15
Imminent Danger
his IFP status should not be revoked. Plaintiff states that:
16
18
Violations of Eighth Amendment cruel punishment for FREEZING cold
conditions for ‘Imminent Danger’ of wanton unnecessary infliction of pain and
suffering by Staff denial of ‘heat’ at California Medical Facility (‘CMF’) from Old
antiquated 1953 building AIR-VENTS that do not provide enough adequate Heat
during Winter months.
19
ECF No. 1, pg. 1.
17
20
Plaintiff also states a First Amendment retaliation claim and Americans with
21
Disabilities Act claim. However, he does not provide any imminent danger analysis for these
22
claims.
23
The Court finds that plaintiff is not entitled to IFP status under the imminent
24
danger exception. Plaintiff alleges that the prison is kept at freezing cold temperatures. However,
25
plaintiff also attached his First Level Appeal response to his complaint. See ECF No. 14, pg. 85.
26
The First Level Appeal response explained that an engineer investigated plaintiff’s heating
27
problem and corrected the issue on December 8, 2015. Id. The First Level Appeal Response also
28
states the engineer returned for a follow-up on January 11, 2016, where he measured plaintiff’s
3
1
cell temperature at 71 degrees and plaintiff stated that the temperature was satisfactory. Id.
2
Prisoners qualify for the imminent danger exception based on the time that the complaint was
3
filed. See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff filed his original
4
complaint on July 7, 2016. See ECF No. 1. Plaintiff’s cell-based heating issues had been resolved
5
for six months by the time plaintiff filed his compliant and therefore plaintiff does not qualify for
6
the imminent danger exception.
7
Plaintiff also alleges that correctional officers temporarily leave doors open which
8
makes the prison temperature uncomfortable. See ECF No. 14, pg. 56. Although the Eighth
9
Amendment mandates adequate heating in prisons, it does not mandate that the temperature
10
within the prison be comfortable. See Graves v. Arpaio, 623 F.3d 1043, 1049 (9th Cir. 2010) (per
11
curiam). While plaintiff may prefer a higher ambient temperature, cool temperatures do not
12
constitute an imminent danger of serious physical injury.
13
Finally, plaintiff makes fantastical references to swamp coolers that force prisoners
14
into a state of “hibernation.” See ECF No. 14, pgs. 3-5. The Court may dismiss a claim as
15
frivolous where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
16
319, 325 (1989). The Court need not accept the allegations of the complaint as true, but must
17
determine whether they are fanciful, fantastic, or delusional. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 328.
18
Human beings do not have the biological capacity to hibernate. Thus, the Court need not
19
undertake an analysis to determine whether hypothetical forced hibernation would comprise an
20
imminent danger to inmates.
Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Counterclaim
21
B.
22
Plaintiff filed a counterclaim against defendants on February 3, 2020. See ECF No.
23
35. Defendants move to strike the counterclaim on the basis that it does not raise any new causes
24
of action. See ECF No. 35, pg. 2. In his opposition, plaintiff argues that his counterclaim is
25
compulsory under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13(a) because it arises out of the same
26
transaction or occurrence. See ECF No. 36, pg. 1.
27
///
28
///
4
1
The Court finds that defendants’ motion to strike plaintiff’s counterclaim should
2
be granted. Plaintiff’s counterclaim responds to the arguments in defendants’ reply to plaintiff’s
3
opposition to the motion to strike. In fact, plaintiff labeled the counterclaim “Plaintiff’s Counter
4
Claim in Support of Opposition to Defendants’ Reply to Revoke Plaintiff’s In Forma Pauperis
5
Where Plaintiff Meet Imminent Danger When Civil Complaint Filed”. See ECF No. 33, pg. 1.
6
Plaintiff’s counterclaim is really a sur-reply to defendants’ reply to plaintiff’s opposition. Plaintiff
7
did not have a right to file a sur-reply and the Court did not grant leave for plaintiff to file a sur-
8
reply. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 230(1). Plaintiff’s counterclaim is not compulsory because it is
9
not a new claim at all. Thus, plaintiff’s counterclaim must be stricken.
10
11
CONCLUSION
12
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that:
13
1. Defendant’s motion to revoke IFP status (ECF No. 27) be granted;
14
2. Defendant’s motion to strike plaintiff’s counterclaim (ECF No. 35) be granted;
15
16
17
and
3. Plaintiff be required to pay the full filing fee within 30 days of the date of the
District Judge’s order adopting these findings and recommendations.
18
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District
19
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days
20
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
21
objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of
22
objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See
23
Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
24
25
Dated: July 29, 2020
____________________________________
DENNIS M. COTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
26
27
28
5
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?