Bontemps v. Lebeck
Filing
6
ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 1/25/2018 ORDERING that a district judge be assigned to this case and RECOMMENDING 5 Motion to Proceed IFP be denied and plaintiff be required to furnish the stat utory filing fee of $400 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. Assigned and referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Henshaw, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
GREGORY BONTEMPS,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
No. 2:17-cv-2406 DB P
v.
ORDER AND
J. LEBECK,
15
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Defendant.
16
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42
17
18
U.S.C. § 1983. On January 16, 2018, plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis.
19
(ECF No. 5.) For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned will recommend that this
20
application be denied.
21
I.
22
Legal Standards
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) was intended to eliminate frivolous lawsuits,
23
and its main purpose was to address the overwhelming number of prisoner lawsuits. Cano v.
24
Taylor, 739 F.3d 1214, 1219 (9th Cir. 2014). 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a part of the PLRA, reads:
25
26
27
28
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.
1
1
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). As the Supreme Court has stated, this “three strikes rule” was part of “a
2
variety of reforms designed to filter out the bad claims filed by prisoners and facilitate
3
consideration of the good.” Coleman v. Tollefson, 135 S. Ct. 1759, 1762 (2015) (quoting Jones v.
4
Block, 549 U.S. 199, 204 (2007)).
If a prisoner has “three strikes” under § 1915(g), the prisoner will be barred from
5
6
proceeding IFP unless he meets the exception for imminent danger of serious physical injury.
7
See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2007).
8
The Ninth Circuit has held that the complaint of a “three-strikes” prisoner must plausibly
9
allege that the prisoner was faced with imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time his
10
complaint was filed. See Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1189 (9th Cir. 2014); Andrews,
11
493 F.3d at 1055.
12
II.
13
14
Discussion
Plaintiff initiated this action on November 15, 2017. Prior to that date, the following cases
filed by plaintiff were dismissed for the reasons set forth here1:
15
1. Bontemps v. Lee, 2:12-cv-0771-KJN (E.D. Cal.), dismissed without leave to amend on
16
January 31, 2013, for failure to state a claim (ECF No. 20);
2. Bontemps v. Kramer (“Kramer I”): 2:06-cv-2483-RRB-GGH (E.D. Cal.), dismissed
17
18
without prejudice on December 22, 2008, for failure to file an amended pleading after
19
dismissal upon screening (ECF Nos. 9, 12, 14);
20
3. Bontemps v. Kramer (“Kramer II”): 2:06-cv-2580-JAM-GGH (E.D. Cal.), dismissed
21
without prejudice on August 30, 2007, for failure to file an amended complaint after
22
dismissal upon screening (ECF Nos. 9, 11, 12); and
23
4. Bontemps v. Gray (“Gray”): 2:07-cv-710-MCE-CMK (E.D. Cal.), dismissed without
24
prejudice on July 5, 2007, for failure to file an amended complaint upon screening
25
(ECF Nos. 3, 6, 7).
26
Of these four cases, only one clearly counts as a strike (Bontemps v. Lee, 2:12-cv-0771-
27
28
1
The court takes judicial notice of these cases pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201.
2
1
KJN). Of the remaining three cases, the dismissals were for failure to file an amended complaint
2
and failure to comply with a court order. In each of these latter three cases, the underlying
3
dismissal of the complaint was for failure to state a claim.
4
The Ninth Circuit had not addressed in a published opinion whether dismissals of this
5
kind count as a strike under § 1915(g)2, and district courts faced with this question have reached
6
different results. Compare Bontemps v. Callison, 2:13-cv-1360-KJM-AC (declining to find that
7
dismissals for failure to file an amended complaint and failure to prosecute were strikes because
8
the underlying complaints had been dismissed for failure to state a claim with leave to amend);
9
and Keeton v. Cox, 2:06-cv-1094-GEB-CKD, 2009 WL 650413, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2009),
10
recommendation adopted by 2010 WL 1173073 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2010) (stating that a
11
dismissal for failure to amend a complaint dismissed with leave to amend is not a strike because
12
the underlying order recognized pleading defects were remediable), with Hudson v. Bigney, 2:11-
13
cv-3052 LKK AC, 2013 WL 6150789 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2013) (“A dismissal for failure to
14
prosecute an action constitutes a strike when it is based upon the plaintiff's failure to file an
15
amended complaint after the original complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim.”),
16
(adopted in full by 2014 WL 309484 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2014)).
17
Another judge of this court recently considered this same issue concerning these same
18
cases with this same plaintiff in Bontemps v. Harper, 2:13-cv-0506 MCE EFB. The judge in that
19
case determined that the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Knapp v. Hogan, 738 F.3d 1106, 1108 (9th
20
Cir. 2013), is conclusive on the question of whether a dismissal for failure to amend and failure to
21
prosecute counts as a strike under §1915(g). At issue in Knapp was whether the dismissal of an
22
action for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)’s “short and plain
23
statement” requirement constituted a strike. The Ninth Circuit held that it did. By expanding the
24
scope of § 1915(g)’s “failure to state a claim” beyond Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6),
25
the court held that “after an incomprehensible complaint is dismissed under Rule 8 and the
26
27
28
2
In an unpublished decision, Baskett v. Quinn, 225 Fed. App’x. 639 (9th Cir. Mar. 21, 2007), the
Ninth Circuit upheld a district court order finding that a prior dismissal for failure to file an
amended complaint constituted a strike.
3
1
plaintiff is given, but fails, to take advantage of the leave to amend, ‘the judge [is] left with [] a
2
complaint that, being irremediably unintelligible, [gives] rise to an inference that the plaintiff
3
could not state a claim.” 738 F.3d at 1110 (internal citations omitted). The court’s determination
4
in Bontemps v. Harper was affirmed in an unpublished memorandum decision on December 29,
5
2017, Case No. 16-16418 (9th Cir.), where the appellate court held as follows:
The district court properly revoked Bontemps’ IFP status because at
least three of Bontemps’ prior cases qualified as “strikes” under 28
U.S.C. § 1915. See Harris v. Mangum, 863 F.3d 1133, 1143 (9th
Cir. 2017) (“[W]hen (1) a district court dismisses a complaint on
the ground that it fails to state a claim, (2) the court grants leave to
amend, and (3) the plaintiff then fails to file an amended complaint,
the dismissal counts as a strike under § 1915(g).”); Knapp v.
Hogan, 738 F.3d 1106, 1109 (9th Cir. 2013) (defining when a case
is frivolous or malicious, or fails to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. §
1915, and can be considered a strike).
6
7
8
9
10
11
In each of the three cases at issue here, the respective courts found on screening that
12
plaintiff failed to state a claim. Though the undersigned agrees with Bontemps v. Callison and
13
Keeton v. Cox that, by granting leave to amend, the courts found that the defects identified on
14
15
screening may have been remediable, the plaintiff’s subsequent failure to take advantage of the
leave to amend gave “rise to an inference that [he] could not state a claim.” See Knapp, 783 F.3d
16
at 1110. The undersigned therefore reaches the same conclusion as was reached in Bontemps v.
17
Harper that the dismissals in Kramer I, Kramer II, and Gray for failure to file an amended
18
complaint count as strikes.
19
The next question before the court is whether plaintiff qualifies for the exception to the
20
21
three-strikes rule – that is, was plaintiff faced with imminent danger of serious physical injury at
the time his complaint was filed. Plaintiff’s pleading asserts an excessive force claim against a
22
single defendant for conduct occurring on June 7, 2017. The undersigned finds that this incident,
23
which predates the filing of this action by several months, does not qualify plaintiff for the
24
imminent danger exception of the three-strikes rule.
25
III.
Conclusion
26
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a district judge be assigned to this case; and
27
////
28
4
1
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis
2
be DENIED and plaintiff be required to furnish the statutory filing fee of $400 to proceed with
3
this action and be admonished that failure to pay the filing fee within thirty days of any order
4
adopting this recommendation will result in dismissal of this action.
5
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
6
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
7
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
8
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
9
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the
10
objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The
11
parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to
12
appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
13
Dated: January 25, 2018
14
15
16
17
/DLB7;
DB/Inbox/Substantive/bont2406.ifp deny fr
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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?