Bettis v. Internal Revenue Service ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KIRELL FRANCIS BETTIS TRUST and No: 1:20-cv-00148-NONE-SKO 12 KIRELL F. BETTIS-TAYLOR, ORDER ADDRESSING JUNE 12, 2020 13 Plaintiffs, FILING 14 v. (Doc. No. 17) 15 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE (IRS), K. GREEN, and A. RASCHKE, 16 Defendants. 17 18 This case was closed on March 27, 2020, after plaintiff, who is subject to the three strikes 19 provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), failed to pay the 20 required $400.00 filing fee in full. (Doc. No. 11.) On April 27, 2020, the court denied plaintiff’s 21 motion for reconsideration, but afforded plaintiff one additional opportunity to pay the required 22 filing fee, indicating that if plaintiff failed to pay the fee by May 11, 2020, the case would remain 23 closed. (Doc. No. 13.) On May 7, 2020, plaintiff filed a document with the court that appeared to 24 be a promissory note in an apparent attempt to satisfy the requirement that he pay the filling fee to 25 proceed with this action. (Doc. No. 14.) That method of payment was rejected by the Clerk of 26 Court because a promissory note is not a proper form of payment. (Doc. No. 15.) Accordingly, 27 the case remains closed. 28 ///// MASS 4 OVE ENE SINS LO POC VOIP THEN TOYS OVS 1 On several occasions during this litigation, plaintiff sought to invoke the imminent danger 2 || exception to the PLRA’s three strikes provision. The court has repeatedly found that the 3 || exception was not triggered. (See Doc. No. 3; Doc No 11 at 2.) On June 12, 2020, plaintiff filed 4 | adocument that again attempts to assert eligibility under the imminent danger exception. (Doc. 5 | No. 17.) The court interprets this document as a motion for reconsideration. This latest filing 6 || reiterates claims plaintiff has made previously concerning threats of retaliation related to his 7 | refusal to withdraw a staff complaint about an alleged excessive use of force incident at Corcoran 8 | State Prison. Ud.) Plaintiff now highlights a portion of an April 10, 2020 filing, in which he 9 | asserted that on January 27, 2020, a correctional officer at plaintiffs current place of 10 | incarceration (CCI Tehachapi) threatened him with physical violence if he did not withdraw his 11 | staff complaint about the incident at Corcoran. (Doc. No. 12 at 6.) The court again has examined 12 | plaintiffs assertions of imminent harm in detail and finds no basis for reconsideration of its prior 13 | finding that plaintiff has failed to set forth “specific fact allegations of ongoing serious physical 14 | injury, or a pattern of misconduct evidencing the likelihood of imminent serious physical injury.” 15 | Martin v. Shelton, 319 F.3d 1048, 1050 (8th Cir. 2003). Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is 16 | therefore DENIED. 17 | IT IS SO ORDERED. me □ Dated: _ August 3, 2020 Yel A Yaad 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28