(PC) Ruiz v. Woodfill et al

Filing 4

ORDER, FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 1/31/2020 ORDERING the Clerk to randomly assign a US District Judge to this action and RECOMMENDING plaintiff's 2 motion to proceed ifp be denied, and 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 Kimberly J. Mueller; 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

ROGELIO MAY RUIZ,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:20-cv-0205 AC P

v.

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

D. WOODFILL, et al.,

15

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 seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). ECF No. 2.

21

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) permits any court of the United States to

22

authorize the commencement and prosecution of any suit without prepayment of fees by a person

23

who submits an affidavit indicating that the person is unable to pay such fees. However,

24
25
26
27
28

[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.

1

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The plain language of the statute makes clear that a prisoner is precluded

2

from bringing a civil action or an appeal in forma pauperis if the prisoner has brought three

3

frivolous actions and/or appeals (or any combination thereof totaling three). Rodriguez v. Cook,

4

169 F.3d 1176, 1178 (9th Cir. 1999). “[Section] 1915(g) should be used to deny a prisoner’s [in

5

forma pauperis] status only when, after careful evaluation of the order dismissing an action, and

6

other relevant information, the district court determines that the action was dismissed because it

7

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

8

Cir. 2005). “[W]hen a district court disposes of an in forma pauperis complaint ‘on the grounds

9

that [the claim] is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,’

10

such a complaint is ‘dismissed’ for purposes of § 1915(g) even if the district court styles such

11

dismissal as denial of the prisoner’s application to file the action without prepayment of the full

12

filing fee.” O’Neal v. Price, 531 F.3d 1146, 1153 (9th Cir. 2008) (second alteration in original).

13

Dismissal also counts as a strike under § 1915(g) “when (1) a district court dismisses a complaint

14

on the ground that it fails to state a claim, (2) the court grants leave to amend, and (3) the plaintiff

15

then fails to file an amended complaint” regardless of whether the case was dismissed with or

16

without prejudice. Harris v. Mangum, 863 F.3d 1133, 1142-43 (9th Cir. 2017).

17

Inspection of other cases filed by plaintiff has led to the identification of at least three

18

cases brought by plaintiff that qualify as strikes. The court takes judicial notice of the following

19

lawsuits filed by plaintiff:1

20

1. Ruiz v. McGuire, S.D. Cal. No. 3:16-cv-0388 AJB BLM (complaint dismissed with

21

leave to amend for failure to state a claim, case dismissed on May 9, 2016, for failure

22

to file an amended complaint);
2. Ruiz v. Curry, E.D. Cal. No. 1:17-cv-1454 DAD SAB (case dismissed for failure to

23
24
25
26
27
28

state a claim on May 30, 2018);
1

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).
2

1

3. Ruiz v. Curry, 9th Cir. No. 19-16456 (appeal dismissed as frivolous on November 22,
2019).2

2
3

All of the preceding cases were dismissed in advance of the January 28, 2020 filing of the

4

instant action and none of the strikes have been overturned. Therefore, this court finds that

5

plaintiff is precluded from proceeding in forma pauperis unless he is “under imminent danger of

6

serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). To satisfy the exception, plaintiff must have

7

alleged facts that demonstrate that he was “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at

8

the time of filing the complaint. Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2007)

9

(“[I]t is the circumstances at the time of the filing of the complaint that matters for purposes of

10

the ‘imminent danger’ exception to § 1915(g).”); see also, Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d

11

307, 312-14 (3rd Cir. 2001); Medberry v. Butler, 185 F.3d 1189, 1192-93 (11th Cir. 1999);

12

Ashley v. Dilworth, 147 F.3d 715, 717 (8th Cir. 1998); Banos v. O’Guin, 144 F.3d 883, 885 (5th

13

Cir. 1998).

14

The complaint alleges that on May 24, 2019, defendants retaliated against plaintiff and

15

delayed his access to the courts by destroying some of his legal documents. ECF No. 1 at 3-6.

16

These allegations do not demonstrate an imminent risk of serious physical injury at the time of

17

filing, and the undersigned will therefore recommend that plaintiff be required to pay the filing

18

fee in full or have the complaint dismissed.

19

II.

Plain Language Summary of this Order for a Pro Se Litigant

20

You have at least three strikes under § 1915(g) and cannot be granted in forma pauperis

21

status unless you show the court that you were in imminent danger of serious physical injury at

22

the time you filed the complaint. You have not shown that you were in imminent danger of

23

serious physical injury and so it is being recommended that your motion to proceed in forma

24

pauperis be denied and you be required to pay the whole filing fee at one time.

25
26
27
28

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall randomly
assign a United States District Judge to this action.
2

This appeal challenged the dismissal of Ruiz v. Curry, E.D. Cal. No. 1:17-cv-1407 DAD SKO,
not the similarly-named action identified above as plaintiff’s second strike.
3

1

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis,

2

ECF No. 2, be denied and plaintiff be ordered to pay the entire $400.00 in required fees within

3

thirty days or face dismissal of the case.

4

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

5

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

6

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections

7

with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings

8

and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified

9

time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153

10

(9th Cir. 1991).

11

DATED: January 31, 2020

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4