Grandinetti v. Heggman et al

Filing 4

ORDER DENYING IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION AND DISMISSING ACTION re 1 , 3 - Signed by JUDGE HELEN GILLMOR on 4/3/2018. "Grandinetti's request to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED and this action is DISMI SSED without prejudice to Grandinetti raising his claims in a new action in the District of Arizona with concurrentpayment of the filing fee. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close the case and note this dismissal is pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)." (emt, )COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service - Francis Grandinetti shall be served by First Class Mail to the address of record on April 4, 2018.

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

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
DR. MICHAEL HEGGMAN,
)
M.D., GARCIA
)
LABORATORIES, INC.,
)
JACKSON, MICHIGAN,
)
NWMRMC, MISSISSIPPI
)
CONTRACTORS,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_________________________ )

No. 1:18- cv- 00111 HG- RLP
ORDER DENYING IN FORMA
PAUPERIS APPLICATION AND
DISMISSING ACTION

ORDER DENYING IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION
AND DISMISSING ACTION
Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Francis
Grandinetti’s civil rights Complaint and “Indigent
Status Inmate Request,” which is construed as a request
to proceed in forma pauperis.

Grandinetti is

incarcerated at the Saguaro Correctional Center
(“SCC”), located in Eloy, Arizona.

He complains that

Defendant Dr. Heggman reran lab results from November
2005 by sending them to a lab in Michigan.
1

It is

unclear whether these are Grandinetti’s lab results.
Grandinetti’s exhibits attached to the Complaint reveal
that he refuses to be seen by medical providers.
Grandinetti’s request to proceed in forma pauperis
is DENIED and this action is DISMISSED without
prejudice.
I.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner may not bring
a civil action in federal court without first paying
the filing fee if three or more of his civil actions or
appeals have been dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or
for failure to state a claim on which relief may be
granted.
Grandinetti has accrued many more than three
strikes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g),1 has been
notified of these strikes numerous times, and may not
proceed without concurrent payment of the civil filing
fee unless he plausibly alleges 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).
2

danger of serious physical injury.

See PACER Case

Locator, http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov (last visited
Mar. 27, 2017); Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1120
(9th Cir. 2005) (“[D]istrict court docket records may
be sufficient to show that a prior dismissal satisfies
at least one of the criteria under § 1915(g) and
therefore counts as a strike”).
The only exception to § 1915(g)’s three-strikes bar
is if the pleadings show that plaintiff was in imminent
danger of serious physical injury when he filed the
complaint.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Grandinetti may not

proceed in forma pauperis unless his “complaint makes a
plausible allegation that [he] faced ‘imminent danger
of serious physical injury’ at the time of filing” his
Complaint.

Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1055

(9th Cir. 2007).
The Court has carefully reviewed Grandinetti’s
Complaint and its exhibits.

Nothing within these

documents supports a finding that Grandinetti was in
imminent danger of serious physical injury when he
commenced this action.

Moreover, if he is in such
3

danger, Grandinetti should file his claims in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Arizona, where he is
incarcerated and where his claims allegedly occurred.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

He may not proceed in forma

pauperis in this action.
II.

CONCLUSION

Grandinetti’s request to proceed in forma pauperis
is DENIED and this action is DISMISSED without
prejudice to Grandinetti raising his claims in a new
action in the District of Arizona with concurrent
payment of the filing fee.

The Clerk is DIRECTED to

close the case and note this dismissal is pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, April 3, 2018.

Grandinetti v. Dr. Heggman, et al., 1:18- -00111 HGcv
RLP; 3 stks 2018 (no dng
no osc); ORDER DENYING IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION AND DISMISSING ACTION

4