(PC) Ruiz v. Woodfill ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROGELIO MAY RUIZ, No. 2:20-cv-0205 AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 D. WOODFILL, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 I. Three Strikes Analysis 20 Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). ECF No. 2. 21 The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) permits any court of the United States to 22 authorize the commencement and prosecution of any suit without prepayment of fees by a person 23 who submits an affidavit indicating that the person is unable to pay such fees. However, 24 [i]n no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgement in a civil action or proceeding under this section if the 25 prisoner has, on 3 or more occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United 26 States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, 27 unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. 28 1 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The plain language of the statute makes clear that a prisoner is precluded 2 from bringing a civil action or an appeal in forma pauperis if the prisoner has brought three 3 frivolous actions and/or appeals (or any combination thereof totaling three). Rodriguez v. Cook, 4 169 F.3d 1176, 1178 (9th Cir. 1999). “[Section] 1915(g) should be used to deny a prisoner’s [in 5 forma pauperis] status only when, after careful evaluation of the order dismissing an action, and 6 other relevant information, the district court determines that the action was dismissed because it 7 was frivolous, malicious or failed to state a claim.” Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th 8 Cir. 2005). “[W]hen a district court disposes of an in forma pauperis complaint ‘on the grounds 9 that [the claim] is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,’ 10 such a complaint is ‘dismissed’ for purposes of § 1915(g) even if the district court styles such 11 dismissal as denial of the prisoner’s application to file the action without prepayment of the full 12 filing fee.” O’Neal v. Price, 531 F.3d 1146, 1153 (9th Cir. 2008) (second alteration in original). 13 Dismissal also counts as a strike under § 1915(g) “when (1) a district court dismisses a complaint 14 on the ground that it fails to state a claim, (2) the court grants leave to amend, and (3) the plaintiff 15 then fails to file an amended complaint” regardless of whether the case was dismissed with or 16 without prejudice. Harris v. Mangum, 863 F.3d 1133, 1142-43 (9th Cir. 2017). 17 Inspection of other cases filed by plaintiff has led to the identification of at least three 18 cases brought by plaintiff that qualify as strikes. The court takes judicial notice of the following 19 lawsuits filed by plaintiff:1 20 1. Ruiz v. McGuire, S.D. Cal. No. 3:16-cv-0388 AJB BLM (complaint dismissed with 21 leave to amend for failure to state a claim, case dismissed on May 9, 2016, for failure 22 to file an amended complaint); 23 2. Ruiz v. Curry, E.D. Cal. No. 1:17-cv-1454 DAD SAB (case dismissed for failure to 24 state a claim on May 30, 2018); 25 1 The court “may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal 26 judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.” United States ex rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992) 27 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) (collecting cases); Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2) (court may take judicial notice of facts that are capable of accurate determination by sources whose 28 accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned). 1 3. Ruiz v. Curry, 9th Cir. No. 19-16456 (appeal dismissed as frivolous on November 22, 2 2019).2 3 All of the preceding cases were dismissed in advance of the January 28, 2020 filing of the 4 instant action and none of the strikes have been overturned. Therefore, this court finds that 5 plaintiff is precluded from proceeding in forma pauperis unless he is “under imminent danger of 6 serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). To satisfy the exception, plaintiff must have 7 alleged facts that demonstrate that he was “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at 8 the time of filing the complaint. Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2007) 9 (“[I]t is the circumstances at the time of the filing of the complaint that matters for purposes of 10 the ‘imminent danger’ exception to § 1915(g).”); see also, Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 11 307, 312-14 (3rd Cir. 2001); Medberry v. Butler, 185 F.3d 1189, 1192-93 (11th Cir. 1999); 12 Ashley v. Dilworth, 147 F.3d 715, 717 (8th Cir. 1998); Banos v. O’Guin, 144 F.3d 883, 885 (5th 13 Cir. 1998). 14 The complaint alleges that on May 24, 2019, defendants retaliated against plaintiff and 15 delayed his access to the courts by destroying some of his legal documents. ECF No. 1 at 3-6. 16 These allegations do not demonstrate an imminent risk of serious physical injury at the time of 17 filing, and the undersigned will therefore recommend that plaintiff be required to pay the filing 18 fee in full or have the complaint dismissed. 19 II. Plain Language Summary of this Order for a Pro Se Litigant 20 You have at least three strikes under § 1915(g) and cannot be granted in forma pauperis 21 status unless you show the court that you were in imminent danger of serious physical injury at 22 the time you filed the complaint. You have not shown that you were in imminent danger of 23 serious physical injury and so it is being recommended that your motion to proceed in forma 24 pauperis be denied and you be required to pay the whole filing fee at one time. 25 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall randomly 26 assign a United States District Judge to this action. 27 2 This appeal challenged the dismissal of Ruiz v. Curry, E.D. Cal. No. 1:17-cv-1407 DAD SKO, 28 not the similarly-named action identified above as plaintiff’s second strike. 1 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, 2 | ECF No. 2, be denied and plaintiff be ordered to pay the entire $400.00 in required fees within 3 | thirty days or face dismissal of the case. 4 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 5 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 6 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 7 || with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 8 || and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 9 | time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 10 | (9th Cir. 1991). 11 | DATED: January 31, 2020 ~ 12 Chthien—Chare ALLISON CLAIRE 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28