Moody 277807 v. Unknown Party ( 2021 )

1 WO ASH 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Raymond Moody, No. CV 21-00844-PHX-JAT (MTM) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Unknown Party, et al., 13 14 Defendants. 15 16 On May 12, 2021, Plaintiff Raymond Moody, who is confined in the Arizona State 17 Prison Complex-Eyman, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 18 (Doc. 1) and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 19 § 1915(g), the Court will deny the Application to Proceed and will dismiss the Complaint 20 and this action without prejudice. 21 I. Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) 22 A prisoner may not bring a civil action or appeal a civil judgment in forma pauperis 23 (“IFP”) if: 24 the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or 25 appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the 26 grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under 27 imminent danger of serious physical injury. 28 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 1 “[Section] 1915(g) should be used to deny a prisoner’s IFP status only when, after 2 careful evaluation of the order dismissing an action, and other relevant information, the 3 district court determines that the action was dismissed because it was frivolous, malicious 4 or failed to state a claim.” Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005). “In 5 some instances, the district court docket records may be sufficient to show that a prior 6 dismissal satisfies at least one of the criteria under § 1915(g) and therefore counts as a 7 strike.” Id. at 1120. 8 Three of Plaintiff’s prior actions or appeals qualify as “strikes” under § 1915(g): 9 (1) Moody v. Phoenix Police Department, CV 14-00604-PHX- NVW (LOA) (June 13, 2014 Judgment and Order dismissing 10 the Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim); 11 (2) Moody v. Arizona Department of Corrections (Medical), CV 12 16-01654-PHX-NVW (JZB) (June 2, 2016 Order dismissing the Complaint for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend, 13 and July 18, 2016 Judgment for failure to file amended 14 complaint); and 15 (3) Moody v. Arizona Department of Corrections (Mental 16 Health), CV 16-01870-PHX-NVW (JZB) (August 4, 2016 Judgment and Order dismissing the First Amended Complaint for 17 failure to state a claim). 18 Therefore, Plaintiff may not bring a civil action without complete prepayment of the 19 $350.00 filing fee and $50.00 administrative fee unless he is in imminent danger of serious 20 physical injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 21 II. Imminent Danger 22 To meet the “imminent danger” requirement, the “threat or prison condition [must 23 be] real and proximate,” Ciarpaglini v. Saini, 352 F.3d 328, 330 (7th Cir. 2003) (quoting 24 Lewis v. Sullivan, 279 F.3d 526, 531 (7th Cir. 2002)), and the allegations must be “specific 25 or credible.” Kinnell v. Graves, 265 F.3d 1125, 1128 (10th Cir. 2001). “[T]he exception 26 applies if the complaint makes a plausible allegation that the prisoner faced ‘imminent 27 danger of serious physical injury’ at the time of filing.” Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 28 1047, 1055 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting § 1915(g)). Moreover, although a court considering a 1 | motion to proceed in forma pauperis, “should not attempt to evaluate the seriousness of a plaintiff's claims[, . .. ] it has never been the rule that courts must blindly accept a prisoner’s allegations of imminent danger.” Taylor v. Watkins, 623 F.3d 483, 485 (7th Cir. 4} 2010). 5 “TT]he availability of the [imminent danger] exception turns on the conditions a 6 | prisoner faced at the time the complaint was filed, not some earlier or later time.” Andrews, 7| 493 F.3d at 1053. Claims concerning an “imminent danger of serious physical injury” 8 | cannot be triggered solely by complaints of past abuse. See Ashley v. Dilworth, 147 F.3d 9| 715,717 (8th Cir. 1998); Luedtke v. Bertrand, 32 F. Supp. 2d 1074, 1077 (E.D. Wis. 1999). 10 Plaintiff’s two claims relate to his transfer from one cell to another, and the apparent 11 | seizure of his “spiritual book” and “religion stuff.’ These allegations do not show that Plaintiff is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. Thus, the Court will deny 13 | Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and will dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint and this action, without prejudice, pursuant to § 1915(g). If Plaintiff wishes to reassert 15 | these claims in the future, he must prepay the entire $402.00 filing and administrative fees 16 | when he files his action. 17| ITIS ORDERED: 18 (1) Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2) is denied. 19 (2) Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1) and this action are dismissed without 20 | prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). If Plaintiff wishes to reassert these claims in 21 the future, he must prepay the entire $400.00 filing and administrative fees when he files 22 | his action. 23 (3) The Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 24 Dated this 25th day of May, 2021. 25 26 : / ( if Ye 27 James A. Teilborg 28 Senior United States District Judge