Lettieri v. Maruchan, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Jinsook Ohta (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se prisoner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in a civil action alleging mislabeled nutritional information on instant noodles. The court denied the IFP motion and dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee, citing the plaintiff's status as a serial filer with three prior strikes.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis Denied“Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion to proceed IFP [Dkt. 2]” | agree with court The court correctly applied the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) three-strikes rule, which bars prisoners with three prior dismissals for frivolousness, maliciousness, or failure to state a claim from proceeding IFP unless they face imminent danger of serious physical injury. The order recites that the plaintiff has three strikes and that the complaint regarding mislabeled noodles does not allege imminent danger. The court's reliance on the prior case *Lettieri v. Facebook* to establish the strike count is procedurally sound for a district court order, as it relies on the judicial record. The denial follows logically from the statutory requirements and the facts recited. |
Civil Action Dismissed Without Prejudice“DISMISSES this civil action without prejudice for failure to pay the $405 civil filing and administrative fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a).” | agree with court Dismissal without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee is the standard procedural consequence when an IFP motion is denied and the plaintiff does not pay the fee. The order provides a deadline to pay and reopen, which is consistent with local rules and federal practice. The dismissal is a direct result of the IFP denial. |
Certification of Appeal Not 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 certify whether an appeal would be taken in good faith. Given that the IFP motion was denied based on the clear application of the PLRA three-strikes rule to undisputed facts (three strikes, no imminent danger), an appeal would likely be frivolous. The certification is consistent with the court's reasoning. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound and applies the correct legal standard. It correctly identifies the plaintiff's status as a three-strike prisoner under the PLRA and correctly determines that the complaint regarding mislabeled food does not meet the 'imminent danger of serious physical injury' exception. The court relies on binding Ninth Circuit precedent and a prior district court order to establish the factual predicate for the denial. The dismissal without prejudice and the certification of the appeal are consistent with the denial of the IFP motion. There are no significant gaps or errors in the reasoning provided in the order.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
inconsistent with cited authorityOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID LETTIERI, Case No.: 24-CV-1176-JO-DDL 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 13 v. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION 14 MARUCHAN, INC, FOR FAILURE TO PAY FILING 15 Defendant. FEES REQUIRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) 16 17 18 Plaintiff David Lettieri is a prisoner at Niagara County Jail in Lockport, New York. 19 Dkt. 1. Proceeding pro se, he filed a complaint alleging a packet of instant noodles he 20 purchased while in county jail was mislabeled with incorrect nutritional information. Id. 21 Plaintiff also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), Dkt. 2, which the 22 Court denies for the following reasons. A prisoner with three or more “strikes,” i.e., prior 23 civil cases or appeals dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a claim, 24 cannot proceed IFP absent allegations that he faces “imminent danger of serious physical 25 injury” at the time of filing. Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1116 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005) 26 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)); see also Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1055 (9th 27 Cir. 2007). Plaintiff Lettieri is one of these serial filers, Lettieri v. Facebook, No. 24-CV- 28 00873-HSG, 2024 WL 3907038, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2024) (collecting cases detailing | || Lettieri’s three prior strikes disqualifying him from proceeding IFP and noting he had filed 2 || at least 128 civil actions in federal court since 2022), and his Complaint centers around an 3 instant ramen package with incorrect nutritional information. See Compl. at 4, 6. Because 4 allegations do not show he faces an imminent danger of serious physical harm, he may 5 proceed IFP. See Cervantes, 493 F.3d at 1053; see also Ray v. Lara, 31 F.4th 692, 701 6 || (9th Cir. 2022). 7 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion to proceed IFP [Dkt. 2] and 8 || DISMISSES this civil action without prejudice for failure to pay the $405 civil filing and 9 ||administrative fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The Court also certifies that an IFP 10 ||appeal would not be taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). The Court 11 || further directs the Clerk of the Court to CLOSE the case. 12 Plaintiff must pay the $405 initial filing fee by February 26, 2025 if he wishes to 13 reopen his case. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. Qe 15 || Dated: January 30, 2025 16 Honorable Jinsook Ohta 17 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28