Stribling v. Lewis
Filing
23
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 7/12/2018 RECOMMENDING that Deft's January 29, 2018 Motion for an Order Revoking Plaintiff's IFP Status 15 be denied. Referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties.(Cannarozzi, N)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
AARON LAMONT STRIBLING,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
No. 2:17-cv-2009-KJM-EFB P
v.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
LEWIS,
15
Defendant.
16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42
17
18
U.S.C. § 1983. Defendant has filed a motion for an order revoking plaintiff’s in forma pauperis
19
status. ECF No. 15. For the following reasons, the motion must be denied.
I.
20
Background
This action proceeds on the complaint filed September 28, 2017. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff
21
22
alleges that defendant Lewis, a correctional officer, used excessive force against him on October
23
5, 2015 by spraying him with pepper spray without cause and then unjustly charged him with
24
committing battery on a peace officer. Id. at 4.
II.
25
The Motion to Revoke IFP Status
26
28 U.S.C. § 1915 authorizes federal courts to allow certain litigants to sue without
27
prepayment of the ordinary filing fee (commonly referred to as “proceeding in forma pauperis”).
28
/////
1
1
These litigants must show that they are unable to pay the fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Prisoners
2
face additional barriers to proceeding in forma pauperis. One such barrier, known as the “three
3
strikes” provision, provides: “In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action under this section if
4
the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility,
5
brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that
6
it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the
7
prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Andrews v.
8
King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1116 n. 1 (9th Cir.2005). Prior cases that fall within the categories
9
described by § 1915(g) are known as “strikes.” Thus, under § 1915(g), a prisoner with three or
10
more strikes (and who was not under imminent danger at the time of filing the complaint) may
11
not proceed in forma pauperis and must instead pay the full filing fee up front. Andrews v.
12
Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2007).
13
A case is “frivolous” under § 1915(g) “if it is of little weight or importance: having no
14
basis in law or fact.” King, 398 F.3d at 1121 (internal quotation marks omitted). “A case is
15
malicious if it was filed with the intention or desire to harm another.” Id. And a case “fails to
16
state a claim upon which relief may be granted” if it fails to state a claim under Federal Rule of
17
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Id.
18
When a defendant challenges a prisoner’s right to proceed in forma pauperis, the
19
defendant bears the burden of producing sufficient evidence to establish that the plaintiff has
20
sustained three strikes. King, 398 F.3d at 1120. To discharge this burden, the defendant must
21
produce court records or other documentation that will allow the district court to determine that
22
three prior cases were dismissed for the reasons set forth in § 1915(g). Once the defendant has
23
done so, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to persuade the court that § 1915(g) should not apply.
24
Id.
25
The Ninth Circuit has cautioned district courts to look closely at dismissal orders and any
26
other relevant information in determining whether a case was dismissed for one of the reasons
27
listed in § 1915(g). King, 398 F.3d at 1121. The court may deny in forma pauperis status only
28
/////
2
1
when, after this careful evaluation, the court determines that the prior actions were dismissed
2
because they were frivolous, malicious or failed to state a claim. Id.
3
Defendant identifies three cases1 as strikes within the meaning of § 1915(g). The court
4
need not examine all three cases, however, because the first – Stribling v. Defazio, E.D. Cal. Case
5
No. 2:12-cv-02729-JAM-EFB – does not constitute a strike. There, the court dismissed plaintiff’s
6
complaint with leave to amend in its screening order because (1) plaintiff had joined unrelated
7
claims; (2) plaintiff had included a claim that was the subject of another lawsuit; and (3) the
8
allegations of the complaint were “too vague and conclusory to state a cognizable claim for relief
9
and violate Rule 8.” ECF No. 16 at 11-12. When plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint,
10
the court dismissed the action “for failure to state a claim and failure to prosecute.” Id. at 18-21.
11
While the question presents a close call here, under applicable Ninth Circuit standards the
12
single failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) in Stribling v. Defazio cannot
13
support using that case as a strike.
14
In assessing whether Stribling v. Defazio may constitute a strike, the court must ask
15
whether the dismissing court passed on the merits of plaintiff’s claims (that is, determined that the
16
allegations failed to state a claim or were frivolous) or the plaintiff’s state of mind (that is,
17
whether the case was filed maliciously). Knapp v. Hogan, 738 F.3d 1106, 1109-10 (9th Cir.
18
2013). From review of the screening order, it is clear that the court did not pass on the merits of
19
plaintiff’s claims. There is no determination that the allegations failed to state essential elements
20
of a claim or were frivolous. Nor did the court find that plaintiff acted maliciously in filing the
21
complaint. Instead, the court determined that plaintiff’s allegations were “too vague and
22
conclusory” – a violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) – and that plaintiff had
23
additionally improperly joined a duplicative claim and unrelated claims.
24
The Ninth Circuit has held that dismissals following repeated violations of Rule 8(a)
25
constitute dismissals for failure to state a claim under § 1915(g). Knapp, 738 F.3d at 1110
26
(emphasizing that the violation of Rule 8(a) must be repeated). Thus, a dismissal following a
27
28
1
The court grants defendant’s request for judicial notice of selected records from these
actions. ECF No. 16.
3
1
single violation of Rule 8(a) does not constitute a strike. Hendrix v. Nevada, 689 F. App’x 532,
2
533 (9th Cir. 2017) (“[A]n initial dismissal of a complaint for violation of Federal Rule of Civil
3
Procedure 8(a), with leave to amend, does not count as a strike.”). Because Stribling v. Defazio
4
was dismissed for a single, initial violation of Rule 8(a), it may not be considered a strike.
5
6
III.
Conclusion and Recommendation
Defendant has not met his burden of demonstrating that plaintiff has accrued “three
7
strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and it is therefore RECOMMENDED that his January 29,
8
2018 motion for the revocation of plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status 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.” Failure to file objections
14
within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v.
15
Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
16
DATED: July 12, 2018.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
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?