Grandinetti v. Mee et al

Filing 3

ORDER DENYING IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION AND DISMISSING ACTION re 1 , 2 - Signed by JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI on 3/17/2020. (1) Because Grandinetti fails to show that he was in imminent danger of serious physic al injury when he brought this action, his Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis as a Prisoner [ECF No. 2 ] is DENIED. (2) This action is DISMISSED without prejudice for Grandinetti's failure to concurrently pay the civil filing fe e. This dismissal does not prevent Grandinetti from moving to reopen this action with concurrent payment of the filing fee, but he is notified that his Complaint fails to state a claim as written and that venue for these claims likely lies in the Dis trict of Arizona. (3) The Clerk SHALL enter judgment and close this case. In light of Grandinetti's history of filing documents, motions, and requests in long-closed cases, the court will take no further action on any documents filed h erein beyond processing a notice of appeal, unless Grandinetti submits the civil filing fee. (emt, )COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service - Francis Grandinetti shall be served by First Class Mail to the address of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) on March 18, 2020.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
FRANCIS GRANDINETTI,
#A0185087,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DR. CAROLE M. MEE, M.D., et
al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIV. NO. 20-00110 LEK-RT
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
recent pleading, in which he names Dr. Carole M. Mee, Medical
Administrator for the Hawaii Department of Public Safety (“DPS”),
fifteen other DPS health care “administrators” and medical staff,
and countless other unnamed medical providers as Defendants. See
Compl., ECF No. 1.1

Grandinetti is a Hawaii prisoner who has

been incarcerated at the Saguaro Correctional Center (“SCC”),
located in Eloy, Arizona, since approximately 2007.

Grandinetti

alleges no discernible claims against any named or unnamed
Defendants, but simply submits approximately fifty pages of
medical requests, letters, and other documents dating from mid2016 to February 2020.

1

For clarity, the court refers to the numbering and
pagination assigned to filed documents by the Federal Judiciary’s
Case Management/Electronic Case Files (“CM/ECF”).

For the following reasons, Grandinetti’s Application to
Proceed In Forma Pauperis as a Prisoner is DENIED and this action
is DISMISSED without prejudice.
I.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)

A prisoner may not bring a civil action or appeal a civil
judgment if:
the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior
occasions, while incarcerated or detained in
any facility, brought an action or appeal in
a court of the United States that was
dismissed on the grounds that it is
frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted,
unless the prisoner is under imminent danger
of serious physical injury.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

“[Section] 1915(g) should be used to deny a

prisoner’s IFP status only when, after careful evaluation of the
order dismissing an action, and other relevant information, the
district court determines that the action was dismissed because
it was frivolous, malicious or failed to state a claim.”

Andrews

v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Andrews I”).

“In

some instances, the district 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.”

Id. at 1120.

2

II.

DISCUSSION

Grandinetti has accrued three strikes pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g).2

The court has repeatedly notified him of these

strikes and informed him that he may not proceed in forma
pauperis unless his pleadings show that he was in imminent danger
of serious physical injury when he brought this action.

See

Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053, 1055 (9th Cir. 2007)
(“Andrews II”).
The Ninth Circuit recognizes that the imminent danger
alleged must be sufficiently related to a claim within the
complaint for the exception to apply.

See Williams v. Paramo,

775 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2015) (“Williams I”) (finding
plaintiff’s allegations of ongoing threats to her safety by other
inmates “clearly related to her initial complaint” regarding
rumors started by defendants); see also Pettus v. Morgenthau, 554
F.3d 293, 298 (2d Cir. 2009) (holding “the complaint of a
three-strikes litigant must reveal a nexus between the imminent
danger it alleges and the claims it asserts, in order for the
litigant to qualify for the ‘imminent danger’ exception of
§ 1915(g)”).

2

See, e.g., Grandinetti v. FTC Seg. Unit Staff, 426 F.
App’x 576 (9th Cir. 2011); Grandinetti v. Abercrombie, Civ. No.
15-00007 LEK-RLP (D. Haw. 2015); Grandinetti v. Shimoda, Civ. No.
05-00442 JMS-BMK (D. Haw. 2005); Grandinetti v. Stampfle, Civ.
No. 05-00692 HG-LEK (D. Haw. 2005).
3

District courts in this circuit have therefore found that an
inmate asserting the imminent danger exception must show a nexus
between the imminent danger alleged and a claim in the complaint.
See Brown v. Newsom, 2019 WL 4254670, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 9,
2019), report and recommendation adopted, 2020 WL 564708 (E.D.
Cal. Feb. 5, 2020); Johnson v. Sonoma Cty. Main Adult Det.
Facility, 2015 WL 1744281, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2015).
Thus, to qualify for the imminent danger exception, Grandinetti
must show that: (1) the imminent danger of serious physical
injury alleged is fairly traceable to unlawful conduct asserted
in the complaint; and (2) a favorable judicial outcome would
redress that injury.

See id.

Nothing in the Complaint or its exhibits indicates that
Grandinetti is or was in imminent danger of serious physical
injury when he filed this action, or that there is a continuing
practice that injured him in the past that poses an “ongoing
danger,” or that there is any nexus between his non-existent
allegations against Defendants.

Id. at 1056.

Further, the Complaint contains no statement of facts or
allegations of wrongdoing.

It therefore completely fails to

state any colorable claim for relief.

And, to the extent that

Grandinetti is challenging health care decisions made or
treatment received at SCC, venue for such claims likely lies in
the United States District Court for the District of Arizona,

4

where Grandinetti is incarcerated and where he was provided or
denied such care.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

Grandinetti fails to

state any plausible claim for relief or show that he is entitled
to proceed in this case without concurrent payment of the filing
fee.

Grandinetti’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis as a

Prisoner is DENIED.
III.

CONCLUSION

(1) Because Grandinetti fails to show that he was in
imminent danger of serious physical injury when he brought this
action, his Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis as a
Prisoner [ECF No. 2] is DENIED.
(2) This action is DISMISSED without prejudice for
Grandinetti’s failure to concurrently pay the civil filing fee.
This dismissal does not prevent Grandinetti from moving to reopen
this action with concurrent payment of the filing fee, but he is
notified that his Complaint fails to state a claim as written and
that venue for these claims likely lies in the District of
Arizona.
(3)

The Clerk SHALL enter judgment and close this case.

In

light of Grandinetti’s history of filing documents, motions, and
requests in long-closed cases, the court will take no further
action on any documents filed herein beyond processing a notice

5

of appeal, unless Grandinetti submits the civil filing fee.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: HONOLULU, HAWAII, March 17, 2020.

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

Grandinetti v. Mee, et al., 1:20-cv-00110 LEK-RT, 3 stks ‘20

6