Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hicks v. Blackburn

September 28, 2009

MICHAEL J. HICKS, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
J. BLACKBURN, JOHN DOES 2 THRU 5, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Larry M. Boyle United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Currently pending before this Court is Defendant J. Blackburn's Motion for More Definite Statement (Docket No. 36), Plaintiff's unopposed Motion to Amend the Complaint (Docket No. 38) and Defendant Blackburn's unopposed Motion to Revoke Plaintiff's In Forma Pauperis Status (Docket No. 40). This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Larry M. Boyle by the Honorable B. Lynn Winmill on September 11, 2009 (Docket No. 41). Having reviewed the record in this matter, and having considered the written arguments of the parties in the briefing, the undersigned Magistrate Judge concludes that oral argument is unnecessary and would not aide the Court in its decision. Accordingly, undersigned issues the following Order and Report and Recommendation.

DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT AND PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

Defendant Blackburn requests a more definite statement as to the allegations of Plaintiff's Complaint against him specifically. Plaintiff's Motion to Amend his Complaint and his lodged Amended Complaint sets forth specific allegations of Defendant's involvement in an alleged assault. Accordingly, Plaintiff's amended complaint provides the relief Defendant Blackburn requests thus rendering moot the motion for a more definite statement.

Plaintiff's motion to amend appears to state his complaint and allegations more clearly and is unopposed. Good cause appearing and no objection filed thereto, the Court will grant Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint and order that the lodged Amended Complaint be filed.

REPORT ON MOTION TO REVOKE IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS

A. Background

Plaintiff is a California state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis. He alleges that he was physically assaulted in late March or early April, 2005, in violation of his state and constitutional rights. Plaintiff seeks a judgment in his favor for nominal, compensatory and punitive damages. Defendant Blackburn argues that Plaintiff is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis because he has filed more than 20 lawsuits in federal court, and had more than three dismissals that count as strikes issued against him pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Defendant further argues that Plaintiff has been deemed already by this district court as ineligible to proceed in forma pauperis. See Hicks v. T. Thomas, CV F-02-5287, Order dated May 19, 2003. (Motion to Revoke Plaintiff's In Forma Pauperis Status, Exh. C, Docket No. 40-4).

B. Discussion

A Court is authorized to review a litigant's in forma pauperis status "at any time" during the pendency of a case. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The "three strikes" provision of the in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), provides:

In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, 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 may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.

In Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2005), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit explained the analysis used to determine whether an inmate's case is subject to the three strikes rule:

[W]e hold that if defendants challenge a prisoner-plaintiff's IFP status, then the initial production burden rests with the defendants. Thus, when challenging a prisoner's IFP status, the defendants must produce documentary evidence that allows the district court to conclude that the plaintiff has filed at least three prior actions that were dismissed because they were "frivolous, malicious or fail[ed] to state a claim." § 1915(g). In some instances, the district court docket records may be sufficient to show that a prior dismissal satisfies at least one of the criteria under § 1915(g) and therefore counts as a strike. However, in many instances, the docket records will not reflect the basis for the dismissal. In these instances, the defendants may not simply rest on the fact of dismissal. Rather, the defendants must produce court records or other documentation that will allow the district court to determine that a prior case was dismissed because it was "frivolous, malicious or fail[ed] to state a claim." § 1915(g).

Once the defendants have met this initial burden, the burden then shifts to the prisoner, who must attempt to rebut the defendants' showing by explaining why a ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.