United States District Court, S.D. California
JAMES W. BRAMMER, CDCR #C-59515, Plaintiff,
AMY MILLER, Warden, et al., Defendants.
ORDER: (1) DENYING MOTIONS TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AS BARRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) [ECF Doc. Nos. 8, 9] AND (2) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEE REQUIRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a)
GONZALO P. CURIEL, District Judge.
James W. Brammer ("Plaintiff"), proceeding pro se and currently incarcerated at Pleasant Valley State Prison, in Coalinga, California, filed a civil rights complaint ("Compl.") in the Northern District of California pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on July 25, 2014 (ECF Doc. No. 7), followed by two Motions to Proceed In Forma Pauperis ("IFP") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) on July 25 and 30, 2014 (ECF Doc. Nos. 8, 9).
On August 4, 2014, however, U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer determined that because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims alleged in Plaintiff's Complaint occurred in Imperial, California, at Centinela ("CEN") State Prison, and the Defendants are all alleged to be employed at CEN, venue was proper in the Southern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(d), § 1391(b). Therefore, Judge Breyer transferred the case here pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), and did not rule on Plaintiff's pending Motions to Proceed IFP (ECF Doc. Nos. 8, 9) prior to transfer. See Aug. 4, 2014 Order of Transfer (ECF Doc. No. 10).
MOTIONS TO PROCEED IFP
"All persons, not just prisoners, may seek IFP status." Moore v. Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, 657 F.3d 890, 892 (9th Cir. 2011). "Prisoners, " like Plaintiff, however, "face an additional hurdle." Id. In addition to requiring prisoners to "pay the full amount of a filing fee, " in installments as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3)(b), the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA") amended section 1915 to preclude the privilege to proceed IFP:
... if [a] 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 can be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). "This subdivision is commonly known as the three strikes' provision." Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1116 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005) (hereafter " Andrews ").
"Pursuant to § 1915(g), a prisoner with three strikes or more cannot proceed IFP." Id .; see also Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2007) (hereafter " Cervantes ") (under the PLRA, "[p]risoners who have repeatedly brought unsuccessful suits may entirely be barred from IFP status under the three strikes rule[.]"). The objective of the PLRA is to further "the congressional goal of reducing frivolous prisoner litigation in federal court." Tierney v. Kupers, 128 F.3d 1310, 1312 (9th Cir. 1997). "[S]ection 1915(g)'s cap on prior dismissed claims applies to claims dismissed both before and after the statute's effective date." Id. at 1311.
"Strikes are prior cases or appeals, brought while the plaintiff was a prisoner, which were dismissed on the ground that they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim, " Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1116 n.1 (internal quotations omitted), "even if the district court styles such dismissal as a denial of the prisoner's application to file the action without prepayment of the full filing fee." O'Neal v. Price, 531 F.3d 1146, 1153 (9th Cir. 2008). Once a prisoner has accumulated three strikes, he is prohibited by section 1915(g) from pursuing any other IFP action in federal court unless he can show he is facing "imminent danger of serious physical injury." See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Cervantes, 493 F.3d at 1051-52 (noting § 1915(g)'s exception for IFP complaints which "make a plausible allegation that the prisoner faced imminent danger of serious physical injury' at the time of filing.").
APPLICATION TO PLAINTIFF
As an initial matter, the Court has carefully reviewed Plaintiff's Complaint and has ascertained that it contains no "plausible allegation" to suggest he "faced imminent danger of serious physical injury' at the time of filing." Cervantes, 493 F.3d at 1055 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)). Instead, Plaintiff alleges CEN officials violated the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights of the "SNY" (special needs yard) prisoners on CEN's "D" Facility on unspecified occasions by improperly screening their administrative grievances and "mis-classifying" their "RVR's" (rules violations reports). See Compl. at 3-5.
A 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.'" Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1225 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 803 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002)); see also United States ex rel. ...