Woods v. The Board of Prison Hearings

Filing 12

ORDER by Judge James Donato denying 7 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; denying 11 Motion ; denying 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (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

THE BOARD OF PRISON HEARINGS,

10

Defendant.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 15-cv-05136-JD

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTIONS TO PROCEED IN
FORMA PAUPERIS
Re: Dkt. Nos. 2, 7, 11

12
13

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The

14

Court ordered plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be deemed three strikes barred and

15

the application to proceed in forma pauperis denied pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff

16

does not contest that he has three strikes pursuant to § 1915(g). Plaintiff argues that his case

17

should be permitted to proceed because he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.

18

The plain language of the imminent danger clause in § 1915(g) indicates that “imminent

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 the Board of Parole Hearings denied him parole in

2

retaliation for his prison grievances. He also argues that the state is not properly adhering to its

3

policies regarding battered women syndrome and imperfect self-defense. He seeks the state to

4

change certain regulations and better train staff and he requests money damages.

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, other than he

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

seeks to be released from prison so he can be safer. This is insufficient to demonstrate imminent

12

danger.2
CONCLUSION

13
14
15
16

1.

Plaintiff’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket Nos. 2, 7) and his motion

not to be three strikes barred (Docket No. 11) are DENIED.
2.

To proceed with this action, plaintiff must pay the full filing fee, four hundred

17

dollars ($400), within twenty-one (21) days of the date this order is filed or this case will be

18

dismissed.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 17, 2016

21
22
23

JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

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. The Veterans Administration,
Case No. 15-cv-05135-JD.
2

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

EARNEST CASSELL WOODS,

Case No. 15-cv-05136-JD

Plaintiff,
5
v.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

6
7

THE BOARD OF PRISON HEARINGS,
Defendant.

8
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
D58091
P.O. Box 901, A4-233
Imperial, CA 94974

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