Harris v. Mc Call et al

Filing 28

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO REVOKE PLAINTIFF'S IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT. ***Civil Case Terminated.*** Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/3/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/3/2014)

Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 Plaintiff, 5 6 7 Case No.: C 14-0952 CW (PR) MARVIN HARRIS, v. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO REVOKE PLAINTIFF'S IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT J. McCALL, et al., 8 Defendants. 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 Plaintiff, a state prisoner incarcerated at New Folsom State 11 Prison, has filed a pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 12 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the violation of his constitutional rights 13 by employees at Salinas Valley State Prison, where he was formerly 14 incarcerated. 15 Service. 16 pauperis (IFP). 17 18 On April 4, 2014, the Court issued an Order of The Court granted Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma On June 11, 2014, Defendants filed a motion, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), to revoke Plaintiff's IFP status. motion is fully briefed. The For the reasons discussed below, this motion is granted. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DISCUSSION I. Legal Standard A prisoner may not bring a civil action IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 "if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). For purposes of a dismissal that may count under § 1915(g), 1 the phrase "fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted" 3 parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) 4 and carries the same interpretation, the word "frivolous" refers 5 to a case that is "'of little weight or importance: having no 6 basis in law or fact,'" and the word "malicious" refers to a case 7 "filed with the 'intention or desire to harm another.'" 8 v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). 9 Only cases within one of these three categories can be counted as 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 2 strikes for § 1915(g) purposes, so the mere fact that a plaintiff 11 has filed many cases does not alone warrant dismissal under 12 § 1915(g). 13 should only occur when, "after careful evaluation of the order 14 dismissing an [earlier] action, and other relevant information, 15 the district court determines that the action was dismissed 16 because it was frivolous, malicious or failed to state a claim." 17 Id. 18 II. Plaintiff's Strikes Id. Andrews Rather, dismissal of an action under § 1915(g) 19 Defendants request judicial notice of court records from four 20 prior cases that Plaintiff brought in federal court: (1) Harris v. 21 Edmonds, No. CV-F-00-5857 OWW LJO (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed on Nov. 22 27, 2000); (2) Harris v. Hickey, No. CV-F-97-5411 OWW HGB (E.D. 23 Cal.) (dismissed on Aug. 8, 1997); (3) Harris v. Hickey, No. CV-F- 24 97-5186 REC-HGB (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed on Jul. 30, 1997); and 25 (4) Harris v. Kenwood, No. 2:11-cv-2388-WBS-CMK (E.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 26 2014). 27 GRANTED. 28 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980)(court may take judicial notice The request for judicial notice of these court records is See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2); United States v. Wilson, 2 1 of public records, including its own records and records of other 2 courts). 3 In Harris v. Kenwood, the Eastern District of California 4 found that Plaintiff filed three previous lawsuits that qualify as 5 strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and, therefore, denied his 6 request to proceed IFP. 7 See Req. Judicial Not., Ex. D. The Court reviews the three cases noted in Kenwood, and finds that they qualify as strikes. 9 were dismissed on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to state a 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 8 claim upon which relief could be granted and failed to satisfy 11 pleading requirements. 12 qualifies as a strike under § 1915(g). 13 The claims in Harris v. Edmonds See Req. Judicial Not., Ex. A. This The claims in Harris v. Hickey, No. CV-F-97-5411 OWW HGB, 14 were dismissed as frivolous. 15 qualifies as a strike under § 1915(g). 16 Harris v. Hickey, No. CV-F-97-5186 REC-HGB, were dismissed as 17 frivolous. 18 a strike under § 1915(g). 19 See Req. Judicial Not., Ex. B. This Likewise, the claims in See Req. Judicial Not., Ex. C. This also qualifies as Based on the foregoing, Defendants have shown that Plaintiff 20 has suffered at least three “strikes” under § 1915(g). In 21 opposition, Plaintiff does not contest that any of the “strikes” 22 at issue were properly dismissed. 23 paid the filing fee under Title 15, section 3160 of the California 24 Code of Regulations. 25 a civil action in state court is charged filing fees against his 26 prison trust account but, if he is without sufficient funds at the 27 time of the charge, he shall not be charged for any remaining 28 balance. Instead, he argues that he has Section 3160 provides that an inmate filing This argument fails because section 3160 applies to 3 1 state court filings, not to this federal action. 2 Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed IFP in this case, which the 3 Court granted. 4 III. Imminent Danger Exception 5 Further, The plain language of the imminent danger clause in § 1915(g) 6 indicates that "imminent danger" is to be assessed at the time of 7 filing, not at the time of the alleged constitutional violations. 8 Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307, 312 (3d Cir. 2001) (en 9 banc). “Imminent danger” may include an ongoing danger of serious United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 physical injury. 11 1998). 12 danger or subject to an ongoing danger of serious physical injury 13 at the time he filed this action. 14 Ashley v. Dilworth, 147 F.3d 715, 717 (8th Cir. Plaintiff has the burden of proving that he is in imminent In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants 15 retaliated against him by taking some of his property, altering 16 his criminal record and falsely accusing him. 17 allegations demonstrate that Plaintiff was under imminent danger 18 or subject to an ongoing danger of serious bodily injury at the 19 time he filed his complaint. 20 contrary. 21 None of these Plaintiff does not argue to the Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff is not entitled to the 22 exception under § 1915(g), and is barred from proceeding IFP in 23 this action. 24 is granted. Defendants' motion to revoke Plaintiff's IFP status 25 When IFP status is revoked pursuant to § 1915(g), the proper 26 procedure is to dismiss the action without prejudice to re-filing 27 with payment of fees at the time the action is re-filed. 28 Tienerney v. Kupers, 128 F.3d 1310, 1311 (9th Cir. 1998) (under 4 See 1 § 1915(g), case was properly dismissed without prejudice to re- 2 filing with payment of filing fees). CONCLUSION 3 4 Based on the foregoing, the Court orders as follows: 5 1. Defendants' motion for revocation of Plaintiff's IFP 6 status is granted. 7 2014 (Doc. No. 24), granting Plaintiff leave to proceed IFP, is 8 VACATED and Plaintiff's IFP status is REVOKED. 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 Doc. No. 19. The Order entered on July 9, 2. This case is dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff's re-filing it with payment of the $400 filing fee. 3. The Clerk of the Court shall terminate all motions and close the file. IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 Dated: October 3, 2014 ________________________ CLAUDIA WILKEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5

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?