Lopez v. Olson et al
Filing
10
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 6/2/17. Show Cause Response due by 6/26/2017. (kcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/2/2017)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
ANDREW R. LOPEZ,
Plaintiff,
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Case No. 17-cv-02087-PJH
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
v.
G. OLSON, et al.,
Defendants.
12
13
Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. §
14
1983. Plaintiff has also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff alleges
15
that he is receiving inadequate medical care at Pelican Bay State Prison. He states that
16
his prescription for artificial tears was renewed at half the dosage and his Gabapentin
17
pain medication was reduced and eventually phased out. Plaintiff argues that medical
18
staff will only provide opioid pain medication in very rare cases. Plaintiff states he is in
19
severe pain and has trouble sleeping and performing daily activities.
20
The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”), enacted April 26, 1996,
21
provides that a prisoner may not bring a civil action or appeal a civil judgment under 28
22
U.S.C. § 1915 “if the prisoner has, on three or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or
23
detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that
24
was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon
25
which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious
26
physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The phrase “fails to state a claim on which relief
27
may be granted,” as used in § 1915(g), “parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil
28
Procedure 12(b)(6).” Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005) (internal
1
quotation marks omitted). A case is “frivolous” within the meaning of § 1915(g) if “it is of
2
little weight or importance: having no basis in law or fact.” Id. (internal quotation marks
3
omitted). Further, because § 1915(g) is a procedural rule that does not raise retroactivity
4
concerns, cases dismissed before the effective date of § 1915(g) may be counted as
5
qualifying dismissals or “strikes.” See Tierney v. Kupers, 128 F.3d 1310, 1311-12 (9th
6
Cir. 1997). A court may count as strikes dismissals of district court cases as well as
7
dismissals of appeals. See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1178 (9th Cir. 1999)
8
(prisoner does not get three frivolous claims and three frivolous appeals before being
9
barred by § 1915(g)). A dismissal under § 1915(g) means that a prisoner cannot proceed
with his action as a pauper under § 1915(g), but he still may pursue his claim if he pays
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
the full filing fee at the outset of the action.
12
It appears that plaintiff has at least three strikes pursuant to § 1915(g). In Lopez v.
13
Yamat, No. 07-cv-1765 FRZ (E.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2009), the court dismissed plaintiff’s
14
action for his repeated failure to comply with Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil
15
Procedure. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal for failing to comply with Rule 8. See
16
Docket No. 33. The district court dismissal constitutes a strike as frivolous and for failure
17
to state a claim.
18
In Lopez v. Cate, No. 11-cv-0806 MCE KJN (E.D. Cal. Sep. 29, 2011), the court
19
dismissed plaintiff’s claims as barred by the statute of limitations. The Ninth Circuit did
20
not allow the appeal to proceed because it was so insubstantial as to not warrant further
21
review. Docket No. 29. The statute of limitations dismissal by the district court
22
constitutes a strike. See Belanus v. Clark, 796 F.3d 1021 (9th Cir. 2015) (affirming the
23
strike finding for a case that was dismissed as untimely).
24
In Lopez v. Beard, No. 13-cv-1556 LJO GSA (E.D. Cal. May 22, 2015), the court
25
dismissed plaintiff’s claims for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff challenged his denial of
26
parole by the Board of Parole Hearings and the rules and regulations that were
27
employed. The court noted that plaintiff could file a habeas petition to challenge the
28
denial so dismissed the case without prejudice. However, court records indicate that
2
1
pla
aintiff had already filed many habeas petition including a petition challenging the same
a
d
ns
g
g
e
2
parole denial. See Lope v. Brown No. 12-cv
.
ez
n,
v-1172 AWI BAM (E.D Cal. Oct. 9, 2012).
I
D.
3
nied the pet
tition on the merits app
e
proximately one year before plain filed
y
ntiff
The court den
4
the civil rights action. Th Ninth Circuit did no allow the appeal in the civil righ action to
e
s
he
ot
hts
o
5
pro
oceed beca
ause it was so insubsta
antial as to not warran further re
nt
eview. Dock No. 21
ket
6
in Lopez v. Be
L
eard, No. 13-cv-1556 LJO GSA. Therefore, the district court dism
,
missal
7
constitutes a strike for fa
ailure to state a claim.
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
ff
w
y
2017, why t
this case should not b deemed
be
Plaintif shall show cause by June 26, 2
ree
b
ation to proc
ceed in form pauperi denied. Failure to
ma
is
thr strikes barred and the applica
rep will resu in dismis
ply
ult
ssal
IT IS SO ORDER
S
RED.
Da
ated: June 2, 2017
2
13
14
PH
HYLLIS J. H
HAMILTON
N
Un
nited States District Ju
s
udge
15
16
\\can
ndoak.cand.circ9
9.dcn\data\users\PJHALL\_psp\2
2017\2017_02087
7_Lopez_v_Olso
on_(PSP)\17-cv-02087-PJH-osc_
_p.docx
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
1
2
UNITED STATES D
D
DISTRICT C
COURT
3
NORTHER DISTRIC OF CALI
RN
CT
IFORNIA
4
5
ANDREW R. LOPEZ,
A
.
Case No. 1
17-cv-02087
7-PJH
Plaintiff,
6
v.
CERTIFIC
CATE OF S
SERVICE
7
8
G. OLSON, et al.,
G
e
s.
Defendants
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
I, the un
ndersigned, hereby certify that I am an employe in the Offi of the Clerk, U.S.
ee
ice
Dis
strict Court, Northern Di
istrict of Cal
lifornia.
12
13
14
15
16
That on June 2, 201 I SERVE a true and correct cop
n
17,
ED
d
py(ies) of the attached, b placing
by
said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelo addressed to the pers
i
ope
d
son(s) herein
nafter listed, by
dep
positing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by pla
d
n
M
acing said co
opy(ies) into an inter-off delivery
o
ffice
y
rec
ceptacle loca in the Cl
ated
lerk's office.
.
17
18
19
An
ndrew R. Lop ID: D-86
pez
6271
Pel
lican Bay State Prison
P.O Box 7500
O.
0
Cre
escent City, CA 95532
20
21
22
ated: June 2, 2017
Da
23
24
Su
usan Y. Soon
ng
Cl
lerk, United States Distr Court
d
rict
25
26
27
28
By
y:_________
___________
_______
K
Kelly Collins, Deputy Cle to the
,
erk
H
Honorable PH
HYLLIS J. H
HAMILTON
N
4
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?