Grimes v. Miller

Filing 7

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 11/5/12. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/7/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 JEROME L. GRIMES, 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) v. ) ) ) KING SECURITY SERVICES, et al., ) ) ) Defendants. ) __________________________________ ) Nos. C 12-5093 JSW (PR) C 12-5366 JSW (PR) ORDER OF DISMISSAL 14 15 Over the course of approximately three weeks, Plaintiff, an inmate in the San 16 Francisco County Jail and frequent litigator in this court, filed these nine pro se civil 17 rights cases. On May 18, 2000, this Court informed Plaintiff that under the "three- 18 strikes" provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) he generally is ineligible to proceed in forma 19 pauperis in federal court with civil actions filed while he is incarcerated. See Grimes v. 20 Oakland Police Dept., C 00-1100 CW (Order Dismissing Complaint, 5/18/00). Since 21 then, Plaintiff has continued to file hundreds of civil actions seeking in forma pauperis 22 status. With respect to each action filed, the Court conducts a preliminary review to 23 assess the nature of the allegations and to determine whether Plaintiff alleges facts which 24 bring him within the "imminent danger of serious physical injury" exception to § 25 1915(g). In the past, Plaintiff has routinely been granted leave to amend to pay the full 26 filing fee and to state cognizable claims for relief, but he has habitually failed to do so. 27 For example, in 2003 alone Plaintiff's failure to comply resulted in the dismissal of 28 approximately thirty-six actions under § 1915(g). 1 In accord with this ongoing practice, the Court has reviewed the allegations in the 2 present actions and finds that Plaintiff alleges no facts which bring him within the 3 "imminent danger" clause. Succinctly put, these actions make a wide variety o 4 nonsensical and frivolous allegations about a wide range of unrelated events, including 5 among many others, the Jonestown massacre, Viagra overdoses, the September 11 6 terrorist attacks, and the Oklahoma City bombings. On numerous occasions, Plaintiff has 7 been informed that he may not proceed with frivolous allegations and he has failed to 8 cure these problems when given leave to amend. Therefore granting leave to amend 9 would be futile. And even if Plaintiff did amend, he would be required to pay the 10 $350.00 filing fee, which he has never done. 11 Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice under § 1915(g). The 12 applications to proceed in forma pauperis are DENIED. No fee is due. If Plaintiff is so 13 inclined, he may bring his claims in a new action accompanied by the $350.00 filing fee. 14 In any event, the Court will continue to review under § 1915(g) all future actions filed by 15 Plaintiff while he is incarcerated in which he seeks in forma pauperis status. 16 17 The Clerk of the Court shall CLOSE the file and TERMINATE all pending motions. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 DATED: November 5, 2012 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JEFFREY S. WHITE United States District Judge 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 JEROME GRIMES, Case Number: CV12-05093 JSW Case Number: CV12-05366 JSW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 6 Plaintiff, 7 v. 8 DEPUTY MILLER 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 November 5, 2012, 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 19 Jerome L. Grimes S.F.J.C. 1 Moreland Drive #12675072 San Bruno, CA 94066 20 Dated: November 5, 2012 17 18 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?