Murillo v. McBride et al
Filing
64
ORDER granting Defendants' 50 Motion for Order to Revoke Plaintiff's In Forma Pauperis Status, Declaring Plaintiff a Three-Strike Litigant, and Dismissing the Complaint. Dfts' motion to revoke Pla's IFP status under the "T hree Strikes" provision of 28 USC 1915(g) is granted. Pla must pay the $350 filing fee in full within 30 days from the date this Order is filed. If Pla fails to pay the filing fee within 30 days, this action will be dismissed. Signed by Judge Cynthia Bashant on 6/23/2014. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (jah)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
JORGE ENRIQUE MURILLO,
CDCR #T-16641,
Civil No.
Plaintiff,
13
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR ORDER REQUIRING
PLAINTIFF TO PAY FULL CIVIL
FILING FEE AND REVOKING
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF
LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS PURSUANT TO
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)
14
vs.
15
16
17
18
D.K. McBRIDE; MS. RONQUILLO;
N. CATALUNA; V. KEMP; BLUEFORD;
C. SALANG; LT. D. ARGUILEZ;
E. GARCIA; MS. CLARK; R. COBB,
19
11-cv-1560-BAS(KSC)
[ECF No. 50]
Defendants.
20
21
I.
22
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On July 11, 2011, while incarcerated at Corcoran State Prison located in Corcoran,
23
California, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
24
regarding conditions of his confinement when he was incarcerated at the Richard J. Donovan
25
Correctional Facility in 2010. (See Compl., ECF No. 1, at 1.) In addition, Plaintiff filed two
26
Motions to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF Nos. 2, 6.)
27
On October 28, 2011, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP and directed
28
service of the Plaintiff’s Complaint on the named Defendants. (ECF No. 9.) Defendants have
1
11cv1560 BAS (KSC)
1
now filed a “Motion for Order Revoking Plaintiff’s In Forma Pauperis Status, Declaring
2
Plaintiff a Three-Strikes Litigant, and Dismissing the Complaint.” (ECF No. 50.) Plaintiff has
3
filed an Opposition to which Defendants have filed a Reply. (ECF Nos. 55, 58.)
4
II.
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
5
In this Motion, Defendants seek revocation of Plaintiff’s IFP status, as well as dismissal
6
of this action for failing to pay the initial civil filing fee. (See Defs.’ Memo of Ps & As [ECF
7
No. 50-1] at 5.) Defendants also request judicial notice of previous civil filings by Plaintiff.
8
(See Defs. Req. for Judicial Notice [ECF No. 50-3] at 1.) A court “‘may take notice of
9
proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial system, if those
10
proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.’” Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1225
11
(9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 803 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002)). In
12
this case, the Court finds it is appropriate to take judicial notice of the documents attached to
13
Defendants’ Notice.
14
Defendants argue that Plaintiff is not entitled to IFP status in this matter based on his
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
15
previous litigation history.
In addition, Defendants argue that
16
Plaintiff’s “complaint did not allege that he was under imminent danger of serious physical
17
injury” at the time he filed this action. (Defs.’ Memo of Ps & As at 5; citing Andrews v.
18
Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051-52 (9th Cir. 2007) (hereafter “Cervantes”) (noting § 1915(g)’s
19
exception for IFP complaints which “make[] a plausible allegation that the prisoner faced
20
‘imminent danger of serious physical injury’ at the time of filing.”)).
21
A.
22
Section 1915 of Title 28 of the United States Code allows certain litigants to pursue civil
23
litigation IFP, that is, without the full prepayment of fees or costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2).
24
However, the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) amended section 1915 to preclude the
25
privilege to proceed IFP:
26
27
28
Standard
. . . 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 can be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger
of serious physical injury.
2
11cv1560 BAS (KSC)
1
2
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). “This subdivision is commonly known as the ‘three strikes’ provision.”
3
Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1116 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005) (hereafter “Andrews”). “Pursuant to
4
§ 1915(g), a prisoner with three strikes or more cannot proceed IFP.” Id.; see also Andrews v.
5
Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2007) (hereafter “Cervantes”) (under the PLRA,
6
“[p]risoners who have repeatedly brought unsuccessful suits may entirely be barred from IFP
7
status under the three strikes rule[.]”).
8
congressional goal of reducing frivolous prisoner litigation in federal court.” Tierney v. Kupers,
9
128 F.3d 1310, 1312 (9th Cir. 1997).
The objective of the PLRA is to further “the
10
“Strikes are prior cases or appeals, brought while the plaintiff was a prisoner, which were
11
dismissed on the ground that they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim,”
12
Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1116 n.1 (internal quotations omitted), “even if the district court styles
13
such dismissal as a denial of the prisoner’s application to file the action without prepayment of
14
the full filing fee.” O’Neal v. Price, 531 F.3d 1146, 1153 (9th Cir. 2008). Once a prisoner has
15
accumulated three strikes, he is prohibited by section 1915(g) from pursuing any other IFP action
16
in federal court unless he can show he is facing “imminent danger of serious physical injury.”
17
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
18
B.
Application of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)
19
Defendants set forth two district court cases and one appellate matter, filed by Plaintiff,
20
which they argue constitute “strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).1 These matters are as follows:
1.
21
Murillo v. Le Beau, C.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 2:05-cv-07280R-RNB (Order
22
Adopting Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations of United States
23
Magistrate Judge dismissing Complaint for failing to state a claim dated
24
Nov. 7, 2005);
25
26
27
28
1
Defendants also submit a case filed by Plaintiff in 2012 which was dismissed for failing to state
a claim. However, Defendants “acknowledge the [dismissal] does not apply for the basis of the
determination of this matter.” (Defs. Memo of Ps & As at 4, fn.1.) This matter clearly does not apply
to the motion before this Court and was not considered by the Court.
3
11cv1560 BAS (KSC)
1
2.
Dismissing Complaint for failing to state a claim dated Jan. 11, 2006); and
2
3
Murillo v. Inserra, AZ Civil Case No. 2:05-cv-01713-EHC-VAM (Order
3.
Murillo v. Inserra, 9th Cir. Court of Appeal Doc. No. 06-15256 (Order
4
dismissing appeal for failing to prosecute following failure to pay filing fee
5
after denial of Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis dated July 13, 2006).
6
The first two actions are clearly “strikes” within the meaning of 1915(g) as both of these
7
actions were dismissed for failing to state a claim. The third proposed “strike” set forth by
8
Defendants is an appeal brought by Plaintiff of the case that forms the basis of his second
9
“strike.” Section 1915(g) defines a “strike” as an “action or appeal in a court of the United
10
States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim
11
upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Defendants argue that this appeal was
12
frivolous because the Ninth Circuit denied Plaintiff the right to proceed IFP on appeal by finding
13
that the appeal was not taken in good faith. (See Defs. Memo of Ps & As at 4.) Plaintiff argues
14
that this appeal cannot constitute a “strike” because the appeal was dismissed for failing to
15
prosecute. (See Pl.’s Opp’n at 5.)
16
The Court has reviewed the docket in this appeal. On March 10, 2006, the district court
17
in the underlying matter determined that the appeal was not filed in good faith pursuant to 28
18
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). (See Murillo v. Inserra, 9th Cir. Court of Appeal Doc. No. 06-15256 , ECF
19
No. 8.) “The good faith requirement is satisfied if the petitioner seeks review of any issue that
20
is not frivolous.” Gardner v. Pogue, 558 F.2d 548, 550-51 (9th Cir. 1977) (citing Coppedge v.
21
United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962)). The appellate court has the authority to find that the
22
district court erred in finding that an appeal was not taken in good faith. See O’Neal, 531 F.3d
23
at 1150. In the matter before this Court, a review of the appellate docket shows that the Ninth
24
Circuit agreed that Plaintiff’s appeal was not taken in good faith and therefore, Plaintiff’s appeal
25
was frivolous.
26
informed him that he must pay the filing fee or the matter would be dismissed for failing to
27
prosecute. (See Murillo v. Inserra, 9th Cir. Court of Appeal Doc. No. 06-15256 , ECF No. 18.)
The Ninth Circuit denied Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP on appeal and
28
4
11cv1560 BAS (KSC)
1
Plaintiff failed to pay the filing fee within the time prescribed and the case was dismissed for
2
failing to prosecute. (Id., ECF No. 18.)
3
The Ninth Circuit has held that “strikes” pursuant to § 1915(g) are “prior cases or
4
appeals, brought while the plaintiff was a prisoner, which were dismissed ‘on the ground that
5
[they were] frivolous, malicious, or fail[] to state a claim.” Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1170
6
n. 7 (9th Cir. 2005) (emphasis added). Here, Plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed because the Ninth
7
Circuit denied his IFP on the grounds that his appeal was frivolous. See Knapp v. Hogan, 738
8
F.3d 1106, 1110 (9th Cir. 2013) (When an appeals court relies on a district court’s finding that
9
an appeal is “not taken in good faith,” the “lack of ‘good faith’ in this context has been held to
10
be equivalent to a finding of frivolity.”) (citation omitted.) Accordingly, this Court finds that
11
this matter constitutes Plaintiff’s third “strike.”
12
B.
Imminent danger of serious physical injury
13
There is an exception to the three strikes bar of § 1915(g) if there is a “plausible
14
allegation” to suggest Plaintiff “faced ‘imminent danger of serious physical injury’ at the time
15
of filing.” Cervantes, 493 F.3d at 1055 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)). However, at the time
16
Plaintiff filed this Complaint regarding incidents at RJD, he was housed in a different prison.
17
Moreover, there are no claims in Plaintiff’s Complaint that he faced “imminent danger of
18
serious physical injury” while housed at Corcoran relating to the claims in this action.
19
Accordingly, because Plaintiff has, while incarcerated, accumulated three “strikes”
20
pursuant to § 1915(g), and he fails to make a “plausible allegation” that he faced imminent
21
danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed his Complaint, he is not entitled to the
22
privilege of proceeding IFP in this action. See Cervantes, 493 F.3d at 1055; Rodriguez, 169 F.3d
23
at 1180 (finding that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) “does not prevent all prisoners from accessing the
24
courts; it only precludes prisoners with a history of abusing the legal system from continuing to
25
abuse it while enjoying IFP status”); see also Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1231 (9th Cir.
26
1984) (“[C]ourt permission to proceed IFP is itself a matter of privilege and not right.”).
27
///
28
///
5
11cv1560 BAS (KSC)
1
III.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
2
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
3
1)
4
5
Defendants’ Motion to Revoke Plaintiff’s IFP status under the “Three Strikes”
provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) is GRANTED.
2)
Plaintiff must pay $350 filing fee in full within thirty (30) days from the date this
6
Order is Filed. If Plaintiff fails to pay the filing fee within thirty (30) days, this action will be
7
dismissed.
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
9
DATED: June 23, 2014
10
Hon. Cynthia Bashant
United States District Judge
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
11cv1560 BAS (KSC)
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?