Jones v. Sammartino
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Jinsook Ohta (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se prisoner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and his underlying civil rights complaint. The court denied the IFP motion because the plaintiff had three or more prior strikes and failed to allege imminent danger of serious physical injury, and dismissed the action for failure to pay the required filing fees.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (IFP) Denied“Accordingly, the Court DENIES Jones’s Motion to proceed IFP, Dkt. 2” | agree with court The court correctly applied the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) three-strikes rule. The order recites that the plaintiff has 'many strikes' and cites a prior order taking judicial notice of this fact. The plaintiff's allegations of emotional distress and lack of judicial respect do not meet the statutory exception of 'imminent danger of serious physical injury.' Therefore, the denial is supported by the law and the record recited. |
Civil Action Dismissed for Failure to Pay Filing Fees“and DISMISSES this civil action for failure to pay the $405 civil filing and administrative fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a).” | agree with court Under 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), a prisoner must pay the full filing fee if they are not eligible to proceed IFP. Since the IFP motion was properly denied, the dismissal for failure to pay the fee is the correct procedural consequence. |
Certification that IFP Appeal Would Not Be Taken in Good Faith“The Court also certifies that an IFP appeal would not be taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).” | agree with court The court is required to screen appeals for good faith. Given that the dismissal is based on a clear statutory bar (the three-strikes rule) and the plaintiff's failure to allege imminent danger, the certification is consistent with the merits of the decision. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise and correctly applies the binding Ninth Circuit precedent regarding the PLRA three-strikes rule. It accurately identifies that the plaintiff's allegations (emotional distress, lack of judicial respect) do not meet the high bar of 'imminent danger of serious physical injury.' The procedural steps (denial of IFP, dismissal for non-payment, certification of bad faith appeal) are standard and legally sound.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Case No.: 3:24-cv-01597-JO-BLM WAYNE ELIJAH JONES, 12 CDCR #BU-7712, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 13 PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS Plaintiff, AND DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION 14 vs. FOR FAILURE TO PAY FILING 15 FEES REQUIRED BY JANIS L. SAMMARTINO, et al., 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) 16 Defendants. 17 [Dkt. 2] 18 19 Plaintiff Wayne Elijah Jones is a prisoner at Richard J. Donovan Correctional 20 Facility (“RJD”) in San Diego, California. Proceeding pro se, he filed a civil rights 21 complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). 22 Dkts. 1, 2. A prisoner with three or more “strikes,” i.e., prior civil cases or appeals 23 dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a claim, “cannot proceed IFP” 24 absent a plausible allegation of “imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time of 25 filing. Andrews. v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1116 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting 28 U.S.C. 26 § 1915(g)); see also Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1055 (9th Cir. 2007). Jones’s 27 many strikes disqualify him from proceeding IFP unless he plausibly alleges that he faces 1 |/imminent danger. See Dkt. 1 at 2, 6; see also Jones v. CDCR Work Change Officer, 2024 2 || WL 4195315, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2024) (taking judicial notice of Jones’s prior strikes 3 || disqualifying him from proceeding IFP). Here, in his September 5, 2024 complaint, Jones 4 ||alleges emotional distress due to privacy rights violations, Dkt. 1 at 2, 4, and because 5 || federal judges fail to show “respect for [his] claims and cases.” /d. at 2, 7. Because these 6 || allegations of emotional distress do not suffice to show he faces an imminent danger of 7 Serious physical harm, he may not proceed IFP. See Cervantes, 493 F.3d at 1053; Ray v. 8 || Lara, 31 F.4th 692, 701 (9th Cir. 2022). 9 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Jones’s Motion to proceed IFP, Dkt. 2, and 10 || DISMISSES this civil action for failure to pay the $405 civil filing and administrative fee 11 |/required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The Court also certifies that an IFP appeal would not be 12 taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). The Court further DIRECTS the 13 || Clerk of the Court to close the case. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. Qe 15 || Dated: December 12, 2024 16 Honorable J insook Ohta United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27