Pauline v. Seabright et al

Filing 11

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REOPEN CASE 10 . Signed by JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI on 05/04/2015. (eps )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
ALDEN PAULINE, #A0256259,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
JUDGE MICHAEL SEABRIGHT, et )
al.,
)
)
Defendants,
)
____________________________ )

Civ. No. 15-00074 LEK/RLP
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REOPEN
CASE

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REOPEN CASE
On March 31, 2015, the court dismissed this action
without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), holding
Plaintiff was not in imminent danger of serious physical injury
when he commenced this suit, and therefore, not entitled to
proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”).

See Doc. No. 6.

The court

advised Plaintiff that he could move to reopen the case within
twenty-eight days on a showing of good cause, or bring a new
action with concurrent payment of the filing fee.
#29.

Id., PageID

Before the court is Plaintiff’s amended complaint and a

separate statement of facts, construed as a motion to reopen this
case for good cause.

See Doc. Nos. 8 & 10.

Nothing within Plaintiff’s amended complaint or
statement of facts convinces this court that he was in imminent
danger of serious physical injury when he filed this action on
March 9, 2015, or even when he filed the amended complaint and
statement of facts.

See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047,

1053 (9th Cir. 2007).

This is particularly true in light of

Plaintiff’s unequivocal statements to Chief U.S. District Judge
Susan Oki Mollway on March 18, 2015, made on the record in Civ.
No. 15-00084 SOM/KSC, that he had not felt endangered or
threatened by prison staff or other inmates since January 15,
2015, or earlier.

Plaintiff does not dispute these statements.

Plaintiff fails to show good cause for reopening this
action, or convince this court to reconsider its decision to deny
his IFP application and dismiss this action without prejudice.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen Case is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, May 4, 2015.

/s/ Leslie E. Kobayashi
Leslie E. Kobayashi
United States District Judge

Pauline v. Seabright, et al., Civ. No. 15-00074 LEK/RLP; 3 stks 2015 (dny reopen);
J:\PSA Draft Ords\LEK\Pauline 15-74 LEK (dny reopen).wpd

2