Tanksley v. CDC-Salinas et al

Filing 59

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REVOKE IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS; TO PAY FILING FEE. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 7/15/11. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/15/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) S. ARANDA; J. WILLS; E. BEAM; P ) SULLIVAN; G. BIAGGINI; W MUNIZ; ) E.B. JONES, ) ) Defendants. _________________________________ ) MOODY WOODROW TANKSLEY, No. C 11-0259 JSW (PR) ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REVOKE IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS; TO PAY FILING FEE (Docket No. 56) 16 INTRODUCTION 17 18 Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights case 19 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants have filed a motion to revoke Plaintiff’s in forma 20 pauperis status pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Although given an opportunity to do 21 so, Plaintiff has not opposed the motion. For the reasons discussed below, the motion to 22 revoke is GRANTED, and Plaintiff is ordered to pay the filing fee within 30 days or the 23 case will be dismissed. 24 DISCUSSION 25 A prisoner may not bring a civil action in forma pauperis under Section 1915(g) 26 "if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any 27 facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed 28 on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief 1 may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical 2 injury." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). A prisoner must be given notice of the potential 3 disqualification under Section 1915(g), by either the district court or the defendants, but 4 the prisoner bears the ultimate burden of persuasion that Section 1915(g) does not bar 5 pauper status for him. Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1120 (9th Cir. 2005). Andrews 6 also requires that the prisoner be allowed an opportunity to be heard on the matter 7 before dismissing the action. See id. at 1120. 8 For purposes of a dismissal that may be counted under Section 1915(g), the 9 phrase "fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted" parallels the language of 10 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and carries the same interpretation, the word 11 "frivolous" refers to a case that is "'of little weight or importance: having no basis in law 12 or fact,'" and the word "malicious" refers to a case "filed with the 'intention or desire to 13 harm another.'" Id. at 1121 (citation omitted). 14 After reviewing the orders filed in Plaintiff’s prior civil rights cases, see 15 Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1120, the Court has found that on least three prior occasions, 16 Plaintiff filed cases in federal court that were dismissed on the ground that they were 17 frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, 18 including: (1) Tanksley v. Tulare, et al., E.D. Cal. Case No. C 01-6593 AWI-WMW 19 (July 7, 2006) (civil rights action dismissed for failure to amend after complaint and 20 first amended complaint dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be 21 granted); (2) Tanksley v. Blackwell, et al., E.D. Cal. Case No. C 08-0093 OWW-GBC 22 (February 9, 2011) (civil rights action dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which 23 relief may be granted); (3) Tanksley v. Avenal State Prison, et al., E.D. Cal. Case No. C 24 08-0442 OWW-DLB (April 13, 2009) (civil rights action dismissed for failure to state a 25 claim upon which relief may be granted); and (4) Tanksley v. California Department of 26 Corrections, et al., E.D. Cal. Case No. C 08-1608 GSA (February 12, 2009) (civil rights 27 28 2 1 action dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted).1 2 The foregoing dismissals of Plaintiff’s prior civil rights actions for failure to state 3 a claim upon which relief can be granted in cases in which Plaintiff was proceeding in 4 forma pauperis qualify as dismissals under Section 1915(g). Furthermore, Plaintiff has 5 not alleged that he is in imminent danger of any serious physical injury. Plaintiff was 6 given an opportunity to file an opposition to defendants’ motion in which to show that 7 the foregoing dismissals do not qualify as “strikes” or that he is in imminent danger of 8 serious physical injury. He has not done so. As a result, he is barred from proceeding 9 in forma pauperis herein under Section 1915(g), and his pauper status will be revoked. 10 Plaintiff will be given thirty days in which to pay the full filing fee, and if he does not 11 do so, this action will be dismissed. 12 CONCLUSION 13 The motion to revoke Plaintiff’s pauper status (docket number 56) is 14 GRANTED. Within thirty days of the date this order is filed, Plaintiff shall pay the 15 entire filing fee; if he does not do so, this action will be dismissed. 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: July 15, 2011 18 JEFFREY S. WHITE United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 26 27 28 Defendants cite a fifth dismissal, but it was of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Dismissals of habeas petitions do not count as “strikes” under Section 1915(g). Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1122. 3 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 MOODY W. TANKSLEY, Case Number: CV11-00259 JSW 6 Plaintiff, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 7 v. 8 ARANDA ET AL et al, 9 Defendant. 10 11 12 13 14 / I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. That on July 15, 2011, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Moody W. Tanksley F-65317 Atascadero State Hospital P.O. Box 7001 Atascadero, CA 93423-7001 Dated: July 15, 2011 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk

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?