Akers v. Siereveld

Filing 11

ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO REFILING WITH FILING FEE UNDER 28 U.S.C SECTION 1915(G); DENYING ( 2 , 4 ) MOTIONS TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND FOR A HEARING. ( terminating 8 , 9 Motions for Hearing) (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/6/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MONTGOMERY CARL AKERS,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10
11

v.
KATHERINE N SIEREVELD,
Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-03340-KAW (PR)
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO REFILING
WITH FILING FEE UNDER 28 U.S.C
SECTION 1915(G); DENYING
MOTIONS TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS AND FOR A HEARING

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Re: Dkt. Nos. 2, 4
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Plaintiff Montgomery Carl Akers, a federal prisoner at the United States Penitentiary in
Marion, Illinois, has filed a pro se complaint under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed.
Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), against Katherine Siereveld, who is allegedly a “legal
advisor” employed by the Federal Bureau of Prisons in Terre Haute, Indiana. Plaintiff alleges that
Defendant is violating his rights by contacting financial institutions and individuals in this district
and telling them that Plaintiff is attempting to defraud them. Plaintiff claims that Defendant is
liable for state law claims of slander and tortious interference with Plaintiff’s financial and
business contracts and for violating his First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
Plaintiff has also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and a motion for a hearing. As
discussed below, the complaint is dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and
Plaintiff’s motions are denied.

24
25
26
27
28

DISCUSSION
I. Preliminary Review of Complaint
A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks
redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.

1

§ 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims

2

that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek

3

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se

4

pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th

5

Cir. 1988).

6

II. Three Strikes Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)

7

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”), provides that a prisoner may not

8

bring a civil action or appeal a civil judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 “if the prisoner has, on 3 or

9

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

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent

12

danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The phrase “fails to state a claim on

13

which relief may be granted,” as used in § 1915(g), “parallels the language of Federal Rule of

14

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005). A case is

15

“frivolous” within the meaning of § 1915(g) if “it is of little weight or importance: having no basis

16

in law or fact.” Id.

17

A review of the dockets of Plaintiff’s lawsuits in other district courts shows that Plaintiff

18

has filed many lawsuits and many have been dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim

19

for relief, which count as strikes under § 1915(g). For instance, in Akers v. Keszei, et al., No. 08-

20

0334-JL (D.N.H. Mar. 9, 2009), aff’d No. 09-1654 (1st Cir. Jan. 21, 2010), the court dismissed for

21

failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted Plaintiff’s Bivens claims against an FBI

22

special agent, a special investigator and federal prosecutors involved in investigating and

23

prosecuting Plaintiff’s federal criminal case and witnesses in his criminal case. See Dkt. No. 8.

24

The court labelled Plaintiff a vexatious litigant, stating he “is a prolific filer of actions around the

25

country containing allegations against many of the defendants listed here, and asserting a variety

26

of nefarious acts by these and other defendants intended to harm Akers’ financial position and

27

ability to engage in business and to acquire wealth. Akers has been identified by the courts that

28

have convicted and sentenced him as someone with ‘a long history of fraudulent activity,’
2

1

beginning at age seventeen, and resulting in the accrual of a ‘serious’ and recidivist criminal

2

history.” Id. at 7. The court listed 18 other cases Plaintiff had filed in various federal districts. Id.

3

at 8-9. The court noted that Plaintiff is a restricted filer in the District of Colorado due to his

4

vexatious and abusive litigation practices. Id. at 9 (citing Akers v. Sandoval, No. 94-B-2445 (D.

5

Colo. June 20, 1995), aff’d 100 F.3d 967 (10th Cir. 1996). Akers v. Keszei is a strike within the

6

meaning of § 1915(g).

7

Other cases that count as strikes are:

8

--Akers v. Poisson, et al., No. 09-0054-P-S (D.Me. Mar. 24, 2009) (dismissed with

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

prejudice for failure to state a claim), aff’d No. 09-1654 (1st Cir. Jan. 21, 2010).
--Akers v. Martin, 227 Fed. Appx. 721 (10th Cir. Mar. 23, 2007) (affirming district court’s
dismissal with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon with relief could be granted).
-- Akers v. Crow, 343 Fed. Appx. 319 (10th Cir. Aug. 28, 2009) (affirming district court’s
dismissal of Akers’ complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)).
Akers v. Davis, 400 Fed. App. 332 (10th Cir. Oct. 38, 2010) (affirming district court’s

15

dismissal of Akers’ complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and holding his appeal was

16

frivolous).

17
18

Akers v. Rokusek, No. 09-0472 DMS (JMA) (S.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2009) (dismissing
complaint as frivolous).

19

Because Plaintiff has more than three strikes under § 1915(g), unless he can meet the

20

“imminent danger of serious physical harm” exception, he will not be able to proceed in this

21

action absent paying the full filing fee at the outset. The plain language of the imminent danger

22

clause in § 1915(g) indicates that “imminent danger” is to be assessed at the time of filing, not at

23

the time of the alleged constitutional violations or at some later time. Andrews v. Cervantes, 493

24

F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2007). The allegations in the complaint determine whether the plaintiff

25

is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. Id.

26

In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant: (1) interfered with his ability to

27

“consummate a financial arrangement” with Aero Funding, (2) told Wells Fargo Bank that his

28

attempt to open an account and to deposit over $250 million on a weekly basis was bogus; (3) told
3

1

two attorneys that, if Plaintiff contacted them, it would be for nefarious purposes; (4) informed

2

members of Plaintiff’s alumni association that, if Plaintiff contacted them, he would likely try to

3

defraud them. None of these allegations show that Plaintiff was in imminent danger of serious

4

physical harm from Defendant at the time he filed his complaint. Nor, is it likely that Defendant

5

could cause Plaintiff serious physical harm because Plaintiff is incarcerated in Illinois and he

6

alleges that Defendant is located in Indiana. Therefore, Plaintiff is barred from proceeding IFP in

7

this action.

8
9

When IFP status is barred pursuant to § 1915(g), the district court may dismiss the action
without prejudice to re-filing with payment of fees at the time the action is re-filed. See Tierney v.
Kupers, 128 F.3d 1310, 1311 (9th Cir. 1998) (under § 1915(g), case was properly dismissed

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

without prejudice to re-filing with payment of filing fees).

12

CONCLUSION

13

Based on the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

14

1. Plaintiff's motions to proceed IFP and to hold a hearing are denied. Dkt. Nos. 2 and 4.

15

2. This case is dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff's re-filing it with payment of the

16
17
18

$400 filing fee.
3. The Clerk of the Court shall terminate all motions, enter a separate judgment and close
the file.

19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 6, 2017
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4