Grandinetti v. Honolulu Police Department (HPD) et al

Filing 9

ORDER re 8 - Signed by JUDGE DERRICK K. WATSON on 9/27/2017. (emt, )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). Francis Grandinetti served by first class mail to the address of record on September 27, 2017.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

FRANCIS GRANDINETTI,
#A0185087,

) Civ. No. 17-00294 DKW-KJM
)
) ORDER
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
HONOLULU POLICE
)
DEPARTMENT, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_____________________________ )

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se. On July 25, 2017, the Court closed
this action for Plaintiff’s failure to pay the civil filing fee or submit an application
to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), as directed. See Order, ECF No. 4.
On July 28, 2017, Plaintiff submitted a document titled, “Proof of
Compliance with Deficiency Order.” ECF No. 6. This document contains copies
of Plaintiff’s prison account balances between July 2007 and November 2010.
Because Plaintiff failed to include a current account statement or an IFP
application, the Court took no action.

On September 11, 2017, Plaintiff submitted a prison “Medical Request,”
dated August 28, 2017, alleging that he saw a dead person in his housing unit.
ECF No. 7. Again, the Court took no action, given its prior directives.
Plaintiff now moves for “CJA and IFP Remedies” in an eighteen-page
document that makes little sense. ECF No. 8. Plaintiff describes seeing a dead
person in his housing unit in Arizona in April 2016. He also includes a timely
prison account balance, dated September 11, 2017, showing that he has $0.52 in
his account, but did not accompany that balance statement with a completed IFP
application. To the extent Plaintiff seeks to reopen this action and intended this
document to serve as an application to proceed IFP, that request is DENIED.
First, Plaintiff fails to comply with the Court’s clear direction to submit a
fully-completed IFP application, that includes his signed permission to withdraw
funds from his account, and certification from prison authorities showing the
activity in his account for the past six months. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
Second, Plaintiff has accrued three strikes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).1
The Court has carefully reviewed the Complaint and the other documents that
Plaintiff submits. Plaintiff sets forth no plausible allegations that he is in imminent
1

See, e.g., Grandinetti v. FTC Seg. Unit Staff, 426 F. App’x 576 (9th Cir. 2011);
Grandinetti v. Shimoda, 1:05-cv-00442 JMS-BMK (D. Haw. 2005); Grandinetti v. Stampfle,
1:05-cv-00692 HG-LEK (D. Haw. 2005). See PACER Case Locator
http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov.
2

danger of serious physical injury, or was at the time he commenced this action, and
is not entitled to an exception to the three-strike bar. See Andrews v. Cervantes,
493 F.3d 1047, 1055 (9th Cir. 2007). Thus, Plaintiff may not proceed IFP.
Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. The Court will take no further action on
documents filed in this action, beyond processing any notice of appeal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: September 27, 2017 at Honolulu, Hawai’i.

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

Francis Grandinetti v. Honolulu Police Department, et al., Civil No. 17-00294
DKW-KJM; ORDER
Grandinetti v. HPD, 1:17-cv-00294 DKW-KJM; 3 stks 2017 (act remain closed)

3