(PC) Adams v. Dahl ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PAUL ADAMS, Case No. 1:20-cv-00852-JLT (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT 13 v. 14 DAHL, et al., (Doc. 6) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint as a matter of course under Federal Rule 18 of Civil Procedure 15(a) or as a supplemental pleading under Rule 15(d). Rule 15(a)(2) provides 19 that “[t]he court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Upon 20 consideration of the motion and review of the Amended Complaint, the Court GRANTS the 21 Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint. (Doc. 6.) Plaintiff’s first amended complaint is 22 deemed the operative complaint for screening. (See Doc. 7.) 23 This Court notes that Plaintiff has more than three “strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), 24 which provides: 25 In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action . . . under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, 26 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 27 may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 1 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). In particular, the Court takes judicial notice of four of Plaintiff’s prior 2 lawsuits that were dismissed on the grounds that they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state 3 a claim: (1) Adams v. Gottlieb, Case No. 2:09-cv-03027-UA-PJW (C.D. Cal.) (dismissed on May 4 12, 2009 as legally and/or factually patently frivolous and as barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 5 U.S. 477, 489 (1994)); (2) Adams v. Small, Case No. 3:10-cv-01211-MMA-POR (S.D. Cal.) 6 (dismissed on Jan. 31, 2012, for failure to state a claim); (3) Adams v. Raske, Case No. 3:11-cv- 7 00243-WQH-JMA (S.D. Cal.) (dismissed on August 13, 2013, for frivolity and failure to state a 8 claim); and (4) Adams v. Roe, Case No. 5:14-cv-00607-SJO-PJW (dismissed on November 2, 9 2016, for failure to state a claim). Each of these cases was dismissed prior to the commencement 10 of the current action on June 22, 2020. Plaintiff is therefore subject to the section 1915(g) bar, and 11 he is precluded from proceeding in forma pauperis in this action unless, at the time he filed his 12 complaint, he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See Andrews v. Cervantes, 13 493 F.3d 1047, 1052–53 (9th Cir. 2007). 14 Upon review of Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, (Doc. 7), the Court finds that 15 Plaintiff’s allegations satisfy imminent danger exception. According to Plaintiff, Defendants 16 subject him to intimidation, retaliation, and ongoing threats of violence. Plaintiff’s allegations, if 17 true, are sufficient to allow Plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis in this action as previously 18 ordered. (See Doc. 8.) 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 Dated: April 22, 2021 _ /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27