Grandinetti v. Grandinetti

Filing 4

DISMISSAL ORDER re 1 - Signed by CHIEF JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 9/26/2014. "Grandinetti's pleading and this action are DISMISSED without prejudice. He may refile his claims in a new action in the District of Ariz ona with concurrent payment of the civil filing fee. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to identify this action on the docket as a prisoner civil rights action." (emt, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants reg istered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Francis Grandinetti served by first class mail at the address of record on September 26, 2014.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
FRANCIS GRANDINETTI,
#A0185087, et al.,

)
)
)
)
Petitioner/Plaintiff,
)
vs.
)
)
LINDA C.C.C. GRANDINETTI, et )
)
al.,
)
)
Respondent/Defendant
_____________________________ )

CIV. NO. 14-00393 SOM/BMK
DISMISSAL ORDER

DISMISSAL ORDER
Before the court is another generic pleading submitted
by Francis Grandinetti.

See ECF No. 1.

It is labeled “Federal

Habeas Corpus Petition: Military-Family Custody Case (IFP
Military-Waiver Case), “Class-Action Case, FRCP,” and is brought
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407.

Pet., Doc. No. 1.

Grandinetti

submits this pleading on behalf of “Three Kailua-Waimanalo
children,” apparently referring to himself and his siblings.
In its entirety, Grandinetti’s pleading states:
The local newspapers and ads in Hawaii are
stating that there is a new re-opening or
tolling date of around August 24, 2014, to
file any cases for child-abuse, sex-abuse,
sexual-neglect, or related claims.
Therefore, for parents’ military-relocation
in Honolulu, subsequent divorce, and any and
all such abuse claims; the Petitioner files
his class-claims under the validated prisoner
“Setala/JCP mailbox rule” in Hawaii.
(Military cases in Honolulu.” Petitioner
said last week and this week, a lot of
macing, rioting, flooding, poison gas
accidents, and handcuffing (August, 2014);
occurred at N-Unit Seg, for CCA/SCC and DPS-

Id.

Hawaii contracts. Federal Habeas Corpus
sought herein on any minor military-rights,
and any deferred adult military duties or
rights.”
Id.
Although not explicit, Grandinetti apparently complains
of abuse by his mother, Linda Grandinetti, and about incidents
that allegedly occurred at the Saguaro Correctional Center
(“SCC”), in Eloy, Arizona, where he is incarcerated.

Grandinetti

fails to explain the factual or legal basis for his claims, pay
the civil filing fee, or submit an in forma pauperis application.
For the following reasons, this action is DISMISSED without
prejudice.
I. RELIEF SOUGHT
Although Grandinetti labels his pleading “Federal
Habeas Corpus Petition,” it appears that he does so simply to
avoid the penalties imposed on his filings by 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g).1

See Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1122-23, n.12

(9th Cir. 2005)(recognizing that some habeas petitions are civil
rights actions mislabeled as habeas petitions to avoid
§ 1915(g)’s penalties).

Even if he presented sufficient factual

detail, Grandinetti’s claims against his mother for child and

1

Grandinetti has accrued three strikes under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g), and has been notified of these strikes numerous times.
See, e.g., Grandinetti v. FDC Seg. Unit Staff, 420 Fed. Appx. 576
(9th Cir. 2011); Grandinetti v. Shimoda, Civ. No. 05–00442 JMS;
Grandinetti v. Stampfle, Civ. No. 05–00692 HG.
2

sexual abuse do not present a federal cause of action pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2254 or 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Rather, Grandinetti’s vague allegations regarding
“macing, rioting, flooding, poison gas accidents, and
handcuffing” at SCC suggest that he asserts a civil rights
violation regarding the conditions of his confinement.

Due to

the nature of Grandinetti’s claims and the court’s past history
with his filings, the court construes this pleading as asserting
claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to
identify this action on the docket as a prisoner civil rights
action.
II.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)

Because Grandinetti has accrued three strikes pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), he may not proceed without prepayment of
the civil filing fee unless he plausibly alleges that he is in
imminent danger of serious physical injury.

His allegations of

sexual abuse as a child do not plausibly suggest that he is in
imminent danger of serious physical injury at SCC.

His broad

allegations concerning mace, riots, floods, poison gas, and
handcuffing at SCC are also devoid of any facts that suggest that
Grandinetti was in imminent danger of serious physical injury
when he filed this action.

Further, as a pro se litigant,

Grandinetti may not represent his siblings or other prisoners in
an action in this court, despite his request for class

3

certification.

See Simon v. Hartford Life, 546 F.3d 661, 665

(9th Cir. 2008) (“[C]ourts have routinely adhered to the general
rule prohibiting pro se plaintiffs from pursuing claims on behalf
of others in a representative capacity.”) (citations omitted).
Moreover, venue for Grandinetti’s claims regarding the conditions
of confinement at SCC lies in the District of Arizona where the
alleged violations occurred and defendants presumably may be
located.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(b)(2().
III.

CONCLUSION

Grandinetti’s pleading and this action are DISMISSED
without prejudice.

He may refile his claims in a new action in

the District of Arizona with concurrent payment of the civil
filing fee.

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to identify this

action on the docket as a prisoner civil rights action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, September 26, 2014.

/s/ Susan Oki Mollway
Susan Oki Mollway
Chief United States District Judge

Grandinetti v. Grandinetti, 1:14-cv-00393 SOM/KSC; dmp 3 stks 2014; J:\Denise's Draft
Orders\SOM\Grandinetti 14-393 som (friv no amd re. child abuse).wpd

4