Woods v. The Veterans Adminstration et al
Filing
10
ORDER by Judge James Donato denying 5 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; denying 9 Motion ; denying 2 Motion (lrcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/17/2016)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
EARNEST CASSELL WOODS,
7
Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10
THE VETERANS ADMINSTRATION, et
al.,
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Case No. 15-cv-05135-JD
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTIONS TO PROCEED IN
FORMA PAUPERIS
Defendants.
Re: Dkt. Nos. 2, 5, 9
12
Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed a pro se civil action. The Court ordered plaintiff to show
13
14
cause why the case should not be deemed three strikes barred and the application to proceed in
15
forma pauperis denied pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff does not contest that he has three
16
strikes pursuant to § 1915(g). Plaintiff argues that his case should be permitted to proceed
17
because he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
The plain language of the imminent danger clause in § 1915(g) indicates that “imminent
18
19
danger” is to be assessed at the time of filing of the complaint. See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493
20
F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2007). The court “should not make an overly detailed inquiry into
21
whether the allegations qualify for the exception.” Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1055. It is sufficient if
22
the complaint “makes a plausible allegation that the prisoner faced ‘imminent danger of serious
23
physical injury’ at the time of filing.” Id.1
24
1
25
26
27
28
The Second Circuit requires that there be a nexus between the alleged imminent danger and one
or more of the claims for relief asserted in the complaint. See Pettus v. Morgenthau, 554 F.3d
293, 299 (2d Cir. 2009). In determining whether such a nexus exists, the court will consider “(1)
whether the imminent danger of serious physical injury that a three-strikes litigant alleges is fairly
traceable to unlawful conduct asserted in the complaint and (2) whether a favorable judicial
outcome would redress that injury.” Id. at 298-99. This would appear consistent with Andrews
II’s holding that, as long as there is imminent danger anywhere in the complaint, the whole
complaint can go forward, although Andrews II does not explicitly state that the danger has to be
1
In this action, plaintiff argues that per his request, the Veteran’s Administration is sending
2
a portion of his disability monthly compensation to his mother, but the funds have been
3
confiscated to pay federal fines. For relief, plaintiff seeks the full amount sent to his mom and no
4
federal withholdings.
5
Plaintiff argues that he is in imminent danger due to prison officials engaging in an
6
ongoing pattern of retaliatory punishment due to his filing of legal grievances. As a result,
7
plaintiff has been transferred numerous times to different prisons and the transportation has
8
resulted in injury. Plaintiff cites to exhibits concerning reflux disease from 2007 to 2011.
9
Plaintiff’s bare allegations fail to demonstrate a plausible allegation of imminent danger. His
argument concerning imminent danger does not relate to any claim in the complaint or any
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
conduct by the Veterans Administration. This is insufficient to demonstrate imminent danger.2
CONCLUSION
12
13
14
15
1.
Plaintiff’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket Nos. 2, 5) and his motion
not to be three strikes barred (Docket No. 9) are DENIED.
2.
To proceed with this action, plaintiff must pay the full filing fee, four hundred
16
dollars ($400), within twenty-one (21) days of the date this order is filed or this case will be
17
dismissed.
18
19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 17, 2016
20
21
22
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge
23
24
25
26
27
28
related to one of the claims for relief.
2
Plaintiff made the same argument for imminent danger in Woods v. Board of Prison Hearings,
Case No. 15-cv-05136-JD.
2
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4
EARNEST CASSELL WOODS,
Case No. 15-cv-05135-JD
Plaintiff,
5
v.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
6
7
THE VETERANS ADMINSTRATION, et
al.,
8
Defendants.
9
10
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
That on February 17, 2016, 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.
16
17
18
Earnest Cassell Woods ID: D58091
A4-233
P.O. Box 901
Imperial, CA 92251
19
20
21
Dated: February 17, 2016
22
23
Susan Y. Soong
Clerk, United States District Court
24
25
26
27
By:________________________
LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the
Honorable JAMES DONATO
28
3
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?