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.

Ullrich v. Idaho State Supreme Court

United States District Court, S.D. California

August 1, 2016

STEPHEN ULLRICH, Petitioner,
v.
IDAHO STATE SUPREME COURT; CALIFORNIA STATE SUPREME COURT; UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT BOISE, IDAHO; UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA; UNITED STATE COURT OF APPEALS, Defendants.

          ORDER (1) DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AS BARRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1915(G), (DOC. NO. 2); AND (2) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEE AS REQUIRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1914(A)

          Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia United States District Judge.

         Petitioner Stephen Ullrich (“Petitioner”), currently incarcerated at the Idaho State Correctional Institution in Boise, Idaho, has filed an incomprehensible petition for writ of mandamus requesting declaratory relief that “legal disabilities, [sic] frustrate, hinder, or chill his access to administrative and judicial grievances, ” as well as injunctive relief granting him access to certain records. (Doc. No. 1 at 4.) He also seeks relief in the form of proceeding against Defendants for their allegedly wrongful dismissals of the multiple frivolous lawsuits he has filed. Petitioner has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in this case to exempt him from prepaying the filing fee. (Doc. No. 2.)

         Legal Standard

         “All persons, not just prisoners, may seek IFP status.” Moore v. Maricopa Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, 657 F.3d 890, 892 (9th Cir. 2011). Prisoners like Petitioner, however, “face an additional hurdle.” Id. That is, prisoners are required to “pay the full amount of a filing fee” in monthly installments or increments. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b); Bruce v. Samuels, 136 S.Ct. 627, 629 (2016); Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2015). However, the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) amended § 1915 to preclude the privilege of proceeding IFP

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[.]

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).

         “‘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 fail[ed] to state a claim[, ]” id., “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, § 1915(g) prohibits him or her from pursuing any other IFP action in federal court unless he can show he is facing “imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time the action is instituted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 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).

         Discussion

         As an initial matter, the Court has carefully reviewed Petitioner’s complaint and has determined that it does not contain any plausible allegations to suggest he “faced ‘imminent danger of serious physical injury’ at the time of filing.” Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1055 (9th Cir. 2007) [hereinafter Cervantes]. Instead, Petitioner appears to claim he is being denied access to the courts based on the dismissal of his prior lawsuits.[1]

         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)). Accordingly, the Court judicially notices the fact that Petitioner, Stephen Ullrich, identified as Idaho Department of Corrections Inmate #56989, has had at least seven prior prisoner civil actions dismissed on the grounds that they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted:

1. Ullrich v. Idaho, Civil Case No. 1:05-cv-00340-LMB (D. Idaho Dec. 7, 2005) (order dismissing complaint for failing to state a claim per 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) [Doc. No. 7]) (strike one);
2. Ullrich v. Barnhart, Civil Case No. 1:06-cv-00080-EJL (D. Idaho May 1, 2006) (initial review order denying IFP and dismissing complaint for failure to state a claim per 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) [Doc. No. 10]) (strike two);
3. Ullrich v. Canyon Cnty. Commr’s, Civil Case No. 1:06-cv-00095-EJL (D. Idaho May 30, 2006) (order dismissing complaint for failing to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(2) [Doc. No. 6]) (strike three);
4. Ullrich v. Canyon Cnty., Civil Case No. 1:06-cv-00320-EJL (D. Idaho Oct. 16, 2006) (initial review order dismissing case as legally frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ...

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.