(PC) Williams v. Thierry ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LANCE WILLIAMS, Case No. 1:21-cv-01792-JLT-CDB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’s MOTION TO VACATE COURT’S ORDER DATED 13 v. APRIL 5, 2022, ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 14 THIERRY, CASE 15 Defendant. (Doc. 17) 16 17 Lance Williams is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 18 rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court dismissed this case (Doc. 14), and 19 Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal (Doc. 18) and a motion to vacate the Court’s dismissal order 20 (Doc. 17). Soon thereafter, the Ninth Circuit held that the notice of appeal is ineffective pending 21 this Court’s ruling on Plaintiff’s motion to vacate, and the appellate proceedings are held in 22 abeyance. (Doc. 21.) Upon consideration of Plaintiff’s motion to vacate (Doc. 17) and his 23 objections (Doc. 16), the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the Court’s order. 24 I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 25 After this case was transferred from Sacramento to Fresno, Plaintiff filed a motion to 26 proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). (Doc. 8.) 27 In the findings and recommendations entered on January 19, 2022, the magistrate judge 1 imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed this action.1 (Doc. 10.) The 2 magistrate judge accepted as true Plaintiff’s complaints that he was assaulted by COs and called 3 a “wienee wacker” and rapist on June 4, 2021. (Id. at 5.) The magistrate judge found that more 4 than six months passed between the incident and the filing of the complaint on December 16, 5 2021; Plaintiff did not demonstrate that he suffered any consequences from being labeled as a 6 sex offender; there was no ongoing serious physical injury or pattern of misconduct; and the 7 complaint describes a single past occurrence. (Id.) Therefore, the magistrate judge 8 recommended the denial of Plaintiff’s IFP motion and the dismissal of this action without 9 prejudice to refiling upon prepayment of the filing fee. (Id.) The Court advised Plaintiff that he 10 could file objections within fourteen days from the date of service of the F&R. (Id.) 11 After service of the F&R, Plaintiff requested a 90-day extension of time to file 12 objections. (Doc. 12.) The assigned magistrate judge granted the motion in part and afforded 13 Plaintiff an additional sixty days to file objections. (Doc 13.) The day after the deadline expired, 14 after Plaintiff failed to file objections, the Court entered an order adopting the findings and 15 recommendations in full, denying Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP, and dismissing the case 16 without prejudice upon prepayment of the $402.00 filing fee. (Doc. 14.) On the same day, the 17 Clerk of Court entered judgment and closed the case. (Doc. 15.) 18 A few days later, the Court received Plaintiff’s objections. (Doc. 16.) However, they 19 were signed and submitted before the expiration of the deadline. (Id. at 3.) Under the prison 20 mailbox rule, a pleading filed by a pro se prisoner is deemed to be filed as of the date the 21 prisoner delivered it to the prison authorities for mailing to the court clerk. See Houston v. 22 Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270 (1988); Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1108–09 (9th Cir. 2009) 23 (mailbox rule articulated in Houston applies to civil rights actions). Therefore, Plaintiff’s 24 objections to the findings and recommendations were timely, and the Court should have 25 considered Plaintiff’s objections before adopting the findings and recommendations as 26 unopposed. Accordingly, the Court has reconsidered its order in light of Plaintiff’s objections, 27 1 In the findings and recommendations, the Court refers to the complaint as (Doc. 8) instead of (Doc. 1). 1 and the Court orders that Plaintiff’s motion to vacate (Doc. 17) is DENIED. 2 II. DISCUSSION 3 In his objections, Plaintiff argues that the complaint was signed on September 25, 2021, 4 and is therefore the filing date of this case under the prisoner mailbox rule. (Doc. 17.) 5 Moreover, Plaintiff advises that his claims were originally filed under Lance Williams v. 6 Corcoran State Prison, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01009-NONE-BAM (PC), and he requests that 7 the Court take judicial notice of the initial pleading filed in that case, while he was still housed 8 at Corcoran, rather than at the time of filing the second amended complaint.2 (Doc. 17 at 2.) 9 In Williams v. Corcoran State Prison, the Court found that the original complaint 10 satisfied the imminent danger exception of section 1915(g) at the time the complaint was filed 11 based upon Plaintiff’s allegations regarding the incident of June 6, 2021, involving Defendant J. 12 Pederson, a corrections custody officer. (Case No. 1:21-cv-01009 (Doc. 9).) Those allegations 13 formed the basis for the Court’s imminent danger finding, and the remaining claims were not 14 properly joined under Rules 18 and 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id. at 4.) The 15 Court advised Plaintiff: “Unrelated claims involving multiple defendants belong in different 16 suits. If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, Plaintiff must choose which properly 17 joined claims to pursue and may not bring unrelated claims in a single action. . . . Further, 18 Plaintiff may not join claims unrelated to the claim which satisfies the imminent danger 19 exception to section 1915(g).” (Id. at 5) (alteration in original). The Court emphasized: 20 “Plaintiff is further admonished that while Plaintiff is granted leave to amend, he is not 21 permitted to join claims unrelated to the claim which satisfies the imminent danger 22 exception to section 1915(g). The Court will not screen any such improperly joined 23 claims.” (Id. at 11) (alteration in original). Plaintiff lodged a second amended complaint on 24 November 30, 2021. (Id., Doc. 24.) 25 Plaintiff filed the instant action on December 16, 2021, based on one of the claims 26 2 On February 24, 2022, Plaintiff’s second amended complaint (Doc. 24) was stricken because it 27 was unsigned and exceeded the page limit. (Doc. 27.) The Court ordered Plaintiff to file a signed second amended complaint that complies with the page limit. (Id.) The case was dismissed without prejudice for 1 | dismissed from Case No. 1:21-cv-01009. (Doc. 1.) Based on the findings in that case, these 2 | claims did not satisfy the imminent danger exception when the original complaint was filed 3 | under the prison mailbox rule or when the first amended complaint was effectively filed. (Case 4 | No. 1:21-cv-01009, (Doc. 16).) Therefore, Plaintiffs filings in Case No. 1:21-cv-01009 do not 5 | establish imminent danger to overcome the three strikes bar. 6 In his objections, Plaintiff explains that “it was extraordinary circumstances his 7 | complaint was not filed while he was still at Corcoran in imminent danger.” (Doc. 16 at 3.) 8 | However, Plaintiff's housing location at the time of filing is irrelevant to whether the allegations 9 | establish Plaintiff was under imminent danger at the time of filing. Instead, the magistrate judge 10 | correctly determined that the allegations in the complaint in this case fail to establish imminent 11 | danger as of the date of filing, December 16, 2021. (See Doc. 10 at 6, F. & R. adopted (Doc. 12 | 14).) Plaintiff's objections do not affect the Court’s order of April 5, 2022, adopting the findings 13 | and recommendations, denying Plaintiff's motion to proceed IFP, and dismissing the case. 14 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of 15 | this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings and 16 || recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS 17 | that Plaintiff's motion to vacate the Court’s Order dated April 5, 2022, is DENIED. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 | Dated: _December 6, 2022 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28