Grimes v. Nixon

Filing 4

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge JEFFREY S. WHITE on 3/1/13. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/1/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 JEROME L. GRIMES, 9 10 11 12 13 ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) ) SCOTT NIXON, et al., ) ) Defendants. _________________________________ ) Nos. C 13-0718 JSW (PR) ORDER OF DISMISSAL 14 Plaintiff, an inmate in the Napa State Hospital and frequent litigator in this Court, 15 has recently filed this pro se civil rights case. On May 18, 2000, this Court informed 16 Plaintiff that under the "three-strikes" provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) he generally is 17 ineligible to proceed in forma pauperis in federal court with civil actions filed while he is 18 incarcerated. See Grimes v. Oakland Police Dept., C 00-1100 CW (Order Dismissing 19 Complaint, 5/18/00). Since then, Plaintiff has continued to file hundreds of civil rights 20 actions seeking in forma pauperis status. With respect to each action filed, the Court 21 conducts a preliminary review to assess the nature of the allegations and to determine 22 whether Plaintiff alleges facts which bring him within the "imminent danger of serious 23 physical injury" exception to § 1915(g). In the past, Plaintiff has routinely been granted 24 leave to amend to pay the full filing fee and to state cognizable claims for relief, but he 25 has habitually failed to do so. For example, in 2003 alone Plaintiff's failure to comply 26 resulted in the dismissal of approximately thirty-six actions under § 1915(g). 27 In accord with this ongoing practice, the Court has reviewed the allegations in the 28 1 present action and finds that Plaintiff alleges no facts which bring him within the 2 "imminent danger" clause. The complaint makes a series of nonsensical or inherently 3 impossible allegations, including “invasion of privacy with terror intent,” illegal 4 psychological medical upcoding,” and “conspiracy to pretext civil litigation as a lure of 5 in pro se plaintiff into Northern District of California runs for agenda to attempt to 6 murder Rouse to induce court appearances in imminent dangerous terrain.” As has been 7 explained to Plaintiff countless times, such claims are barred. Therefore, it would be 8 futile to grant Plaintiff leave to amend. And even if Plaintiff did amend, he would be 9 required to pay the $350.00 filing fee, which he has never done. 10 Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED without prejudice under § 1915(g). The 11 application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. No fee is due. If Plaintiff is so 12 inclined, he may bring his claims in a new action accompanied by the $350.00 filing fee. 13 In any event, the Court will continue to review under § 1915(g) all future actions filed by 14 Plaintiff while he is incarcerated in which he seeks in forma pauperis status. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The Clerk of the Court shall close the files and terminate all pending motions in the cases listed in the caption of this order. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: March 1, 2013 JEFFREY S. WHITE United States District Judge 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 JEROME L GRIMES, Case Number: CV13-00718 JSW 6 Plaintiff, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 7 v. 8 SCOTT NIXON 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 March 1, 2013, 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 Napa State Hospital #206586-0/ Unit Q-1 & 2 2100 Napa Vallejo Highway Napa, CA 94558 20 Dated: March 1, 2013 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?