Grandinetti v. Karan et al

Filing 15

ORDER DENYING TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER re 14 . Signed by JUDGE DERRICK K. WATSON on 06/28/2013. (eps ) -- The Clerk is DIRECTED to open a new civil rights action based on Plaintiff's claims herein and randomly assign tha t action in the normal course. Plaintiff is NOTIFIED that when that action is opened, he will be required to (1) amend his claims by submitting them on the court's prisoner civil rights complaint form; and (2) submit either a fully completed in forma pauperis application or the civil filing fee for commencing a new action, within thirty days CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

FRANCIS A. GRANDINETTI, III,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DR. LORI KARAN, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIV. NO. 13-00221 DKW/BMK

ORDER DENYING TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER

ORDER DENYING TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
On May 6, 2013, Plaintiff filed this action, complaining that he was
denied a medical evaluation before a parole hearing. On May 15, 2013, the court
found that Plaintiff had accrued three strikes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and
failed to allege facts indicating that he was in imminent danger of serious physical
injury when he commenced suit. See Order, ECF No. 4 PageID #22. This action
was then dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff’s filing a new action
accompanied by the statutory filing fee. Id.; Judgment, ECF No. 5.
Plaintiff has since filed three motions for reconsideration, a motion for
temporary restraining order, and a motion to extend time to submit an in forma
pauperis application. See Mots., ECF Nos. 6, 8, 10, 12. Each motion sought, and

failed, to introduce evidence of his imminent danger of serious physical injury
when he commenced suit. The court carefully considered and denied each motion.
See ECF Nos. 7, 9, 11, 13.
Before the court is Plaintiff’s second motion for temporary restraining
order. ECF No. 14. Plaintiff now complains that Arizona prison officials have
subjected him to overly tight handcuffs on numerous occasions over the past years,
but most recently on or about June 13, 2013. See Mot., ECF No. 14-1 PageID #6975. Although these claims may sufficiently allege that Plaintiff is now in imminent
danger of serious physical injury, they do not relate to Plaintiff’s original claims.
Plaintiff’s Motion alleges unrelated incidents that occurred after he commenced
this action and that were allegedly committed by individuals with no apparent
connection to this suit, other than their employment at the Saguaro Correctional
Center in Arizona. It appears that Plaintiff is attempting to litigate a completely
new action based on new events by submitting the present motion, and thereby
avoid the screening requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”),
as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e-g) and the bar that § 1915(g) imposes on his
filings.
Plaintiff may commence a new action alleging these claims. He may
not, however, reopen this action alleging new claims against new defendants in an
2

attempt to circumvent the PLRA. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a); see also Aul v. Allstate
Life Ins. Co., 993 F.2d 881, 884 (9th Cir. 1993) (“A claim based on different rights
and established by different transactional facts will be a different cause of
action.”); George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (“Unrelated claims
against different defendants belong in different suits, not only to prevent the sort of
morass [a multiple claim, multiple defendant] suit produce[s], but also to ensure
that prisoners pay the required filing fees - for the [PLRA] limits to 3 the number
of frivolous suits or appeals that any prisoner may file without prepayment of the
required fees.”).
The Clerk is DIRECTED to open a new civil rights action based on
Plaintiff’s claims herein and randomly assign that action in the normal course.
Plaintiff is NOTIFIED that when that action is opened, he will be required to
(1) amend his claims by submitting them on the court’s prisoner civil rights
complaint form; and (2) submit either a fully completed in forma pauperis
application or the civil filing fee for commencing a new action, within thirty days
//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//
3

from the date that the new action is opened. Any further motions or requests
regarding the present claims SHALL be docketed in the new case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, June 28, 2013.

/s/ Derrick K. Watson
Derrick K. Watson
United States District Judge

Francis A. Grandinetti, III v. Dr. Lori Karan, et al.; CV. 13-00221 DKW BMK
ORDER DENYING TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

4