(PC) Tunstall v. Alexander ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT WILLIAM TUNSTALL, JR., No. 2:21-cv-1701 AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 M. ALEXANDER, 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). Dismissal counts as a strike under § 1915(g) “when (1) a district court dismisses a 9 complaint on the ground that it fails to state a claim, (2) the court grants leave to amend, and (3) 10 the plaintiff then fails to file an amended complaint” regardless of whether the case was dismissed 11 with or without prejudice. Harris v. Mangum, 863 F.3d 1133, 1142-43 (9th Cir. 2017). 12 Inspection of other cases filed by plaintiff has led to the identification of at least four cases 13 that qualify as strikes. The court takes judicial notice of the following lawsuits filed by plaintiff:1 14 1. Tunstall v. Veal, E.D. Cal. No. 2:06-cv-0727 LKK EFB (case dismissed for failure to 15 state a claim on April 3, 2009 (ECF No. 67)); 16 2. Tunstall v. Knowles, E.D. Cal. No. 2:08-cv-1850 RCC (complaint dismissed with 17 leave to amend for failure to state a claim (ECF No. 16), judgment entered on October 18 15, 2010, after plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint2 (ECF No. 17)); 19 3. Tunstall v. State of California, E.D. Cal. No. 2:11-cv-2587 KJM GGH (complaint 20 dismissed with leave to amend for failure to state a claim (ECF No. 4), case dismissed 21 on June 19, 2012, for failure to file an amended complaint (ECF No. 8)); 22 23 24 1 The court “may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.” United States ex 25 rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992) 26 (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 27 accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned). 2 The screening order provided that if plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint, the Clerk of 28 the Court was to enter a judgment of dismissal without further notice. 1 4. Tunstall v. Duffy, E.D. Cal. No. 2:14-cv-2259 JAM EFB (complaint dismissed with 2 leave to amend for failure to state a claim (ECF No. 24), case dismissed on February 3 18, 2016, for failure to file an amended complaint (ECF No. 27)). 4 All of the preceding cases were dismissed in advance of the September 16, 20213 filing of 5 the instant action, and none of the strikes have been overturned. Therefore, this court finds that 6 plaintiff is precluded from proceeding in forma pauperis unless he is “under imminent danger of 7 serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). To satisfy the exception, plaintiff must have 8 alleged facts that demonstrate that he was “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at 9 the time of filing the complaint. Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2007) 10 (“[I]t is the circumstances at the time of the filing of the complaint that matters for purposes of 11 the ‘imminent danger’ exception to § 1915(g).”); see also, Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 12 307, 312-14 (3rd Cir. 2001); Medberry v. Butler, 185 F.3d 1189, 1192-93 (11th Cir. 1999); 13 Ashley v. Dilworth, 147 F.3d 715, 717 (8th Cir. 1998); Banos v. O’Guin, 144 F.3d 883, 885 (5th 14 Cir. 1998). 15 The complaint alleges that plaintiff’s due process rights and rights under the Americans 16 with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act were violated in relation to a disciplinary write up 17 that he received on October 5, 2020, and that the Office of the Inspector General failed to 18 investigate the violations. ECF No. 1. There are no allegations that would demonstrate an 19 imminent risk of serious physical injury at the time of filing, and the undersigned will therefore 20 recommend that plaintiff be required to pay the filing fee in full or have the complaint dismissed. 21 II. Plain Language Summary of this Order for a Pro Se Litigant 22 You have at least three strikes under § 1915(g) and cannot be granted in forma pauperis 23 status unless you show the court that you were in imminent danger of serious physical injury at 24 the time you filed the complaint. You have not shown that you were in imminent danger of 25 serious physical injury and so it is being recommended that your motion to proceed in forma 26 3 Since plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se, he is afforded the benefit of the prison mailbox 27 rule. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988) (establishing rule that a prisoner’s court document is deemed filed on the date the prisoner delivered the document to prison officials for 28 mailing). 1 || pauperis be denied and you be required to pay the whole filing fee at one time. 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall randomly 3 || assign a United States District Judge to this action. 4 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that plaintiff be ordered to pay the entire $402.00 in 5 || required fees within thirty days or face dismissal of the case. 6 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 7 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 8 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 9 || with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 10 || and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 11 || time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 12 | (9th Cir. 1991). 13 || DATED: September 22, 2021 ~ 14 Chttien— Clare ALLISON CLAIRE Id UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28