Morris v. Richards et al
Filing
6
ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 2/07/19 ORDERING the Clerk of the Court shall randomly assign a United States District Judge to this action. Also, RECOMMENDING that plaintiff be ordered to pay the entire $400.00 in required fees within 30 days or face dismissal of the case. Assigned and referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley. Objections due within 21 days. (Plummer, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
LEON EUGENE MORRIS,
12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
No. 2:18-cv-1418 AC P
C. RICHARDS,
15
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Defendants.
16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42
17
18
19
20
U.S.C. § 1983.
I.
Three Strikes Analysis
Plaintiff has not yet submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis in this case or
21
paid the required filing fee of $350.00 plus the $50.00 administrative fee. However, as explained
22
below, plaintiff will not be given the opportunity to submit an application to proceed in forma
23
pauperis because he has accrued three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and he has not shown
24
that he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. Instead, the court will recommend
25
that plaintiff be required to pay the $400.00 in required fees or suffer dismissal of the complaint.
26
The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) permits any court of the United States
27
to authorize the commencement and prosecution of any suit without prepayment of fees by a
28
person who submits an affidavit indicating that the person is unable to pay such fees. However,
1
1
[i]n no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a
judgement in a civil action or proceeding under this section if the
prisoner has, on 3 or more 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.
2
3
4
5
6
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The plain language of the statute makes clear that a prisoner is precluded
7
from bringing a civil action or an appeal in forma pauperis if the prisoner has brought three
8
frivolous actions and/or appeals (or any combination thereof totaling three). Rodriguez v. Cook,
9
169 F.3d 1176, 1178 (9th Cir. 1999). “[Section] 1915(g) should be used to deny a prisoner’s [in
10
forma pauperis] status only when, after careful evaluation of the order dismissing an action, and
11
other relevant information, the district court determines that the action was dismissed because it
12
was frivolous, malicious or failed to state a claim.” Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th
13
Cir. 2005). “[W]hen a district court disposes of an in forma pauperis complaint ‘on the grounds
14
that [the claim] is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,’
15
such a complaint is ‘dismissed’ for purposes of § 1915(g) even if the district court styles such
16
dismissal as denial of the prisoner’s application to file the action without prepayment of the full
17
filing fee.” O’Neal v. Price, 531 F.3d 1146, 1153 (9th Cir. 2008) (second alteration in original).
Inspection of other cases filed by plaintiff in this court and in the United States District
18
19
Court for the Northern District of California and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has led to the
20
identification of at least four cases brought by plaintiff that qualify as strikes. The court takes
21
judicial notice of the following lawsuits filed by plaintiff:1
1. Morris v. Lushia, 9th Cir. No. 00-56600 (Ninth Circuit adopted district court’s finding
22
that appeal was not taken in good faith and case was dismissed for failure to pay the filing
23
24
1
25
26
27
The court “may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal
judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.” United States ex
rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992)
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted) (collecting cases); Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2) (court
may take judicial notice of facts that are capable of accurate determination by sources whose
accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned).
28
2
fee on March 13, 2001);2
1
2. Morris v. Duncan, N.D. Cal. No. 02-cv-0928 MJJ, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29332 (case
2
3
dismissed for failure to state a claim on May 3, 2002);
3. Morris v. Travis, N.D. Cal. No. 3:10-cv-4010 WHO, 2015 WL 7015327, 2015 U.S. Dist.
4
5
LEXIS 153351 (case dismissed on November 12, 2015, as facially barred by the statute of
6
limitations);3
7
4. Morris v. Travis, 3:14-cv-5134 WHO, 2015 WL 8641282, Morris v. Travis, 2015 U.S.
8
Dist. LEXIS 167758 (case dismissed on December 14, 2015, as facially barred by the
9
statute of limitations).
10
All of the preceding cases were dismissed well in advance of the May 18, 2018 filing of
11
the instant action and none of the strikes have been overturned. Therefore, this court finds that
12
plaintiff is precluded from proceeding in forma pauperis unless he is “under imminent danger of
13
serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). To satisfy the exception, plaintiff must have
14
alleged facts that demonstrate that he was “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at
15
the time of filing the complaint. Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2007)
16
(“[I]t is the circumstances at the time of the filing of the complaint that matters for purposes of
17
the ‘imminent danger’ exception to § 1915(g).”); see also, Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d
18
307, 312-14 (3rd Cir. 2001); Medberry v. Butler, 185 F.3d 1189, 1192-93 (11th Cir. 1999);
19
Ashley v. Dilworth, 147 F.3d 715, 717 (8th Cir. 1998); Banos v. O’Guin, 144 F.3d 883, 885 (5th
20
Cir. 1998).
21
The complaint alleges that plaintiff was regularly denied the ability to attend religious
22
services between 2008 and 2010. ECF No. 1 at 3. These allegations do not demonstrate an
23
imminent risk of serious physical injury at the time of filing. The undersigned will therefore
24
2
25
26
27
When the Ninth Circuit relies on the district court’s certification that appeals are not taken in
good faith, the dismissed appeals “clearly count as strikes” because “lack of ‘good faith’ in this
context has been held to be equivalent to a finding of frivolity.” Knapp v. Hogan, 738 F.3d 1106,
1110 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing Gardner v. Pogue, 558 F.2d 548, 551 (9th Cir. 1977)).
3
See Belanus v. Clark, 796 F.3d 1021, 1023, 1027 (9th Cir. 2015) (dismissal for failure to state a
cause of action upon which relief could be granted due to untimeliness constitutes a strike).
28
3
1
2
3
recommend that plaintiff be required to pay the filing fee in full or have the complaint dismissed.
II.
Plain Language Summary of this Order for a Pro Se Litigant
You have at least three “strikes” under the Prison Litigation Reform Act and cannot be
4
granted in forma pauperis status unless you show the court that you were in imminent danger of
5
serious physical injury at the time you filed the complaint. Because your claims are based on the
6
fact that you were not allowed to go to religious services, the exception imminent serious physical
7
injury does not apply. It is therefore being recommended that you be required to pay the entire
8
filing fee in full before you can go forward with your complaint.
9
10
11
12
13
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall randomly
assign a United States District Judge to this action.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that plaintiff be ordered to pay the entire $400.00 in
required fees within thirty days or face dismissal of the case.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
14
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty one days
15
after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections
16
with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings
17
and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified
18
time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153
19
(9th Cir. 1991).
20
DATED: February 7, 2019
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?