Case ID: f-appx_670/html/0558-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Kevin Dean BREWER, aka Michael Green, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HADJADD, Rabbi, individual and official capacity; Howard Gaines, supervisor, individual and official capacity, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-56509
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted October 25, 2016 
    
    Filed November 04, 2016
    Kevin Dean Brewer, Pro Se, Soledad, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Jaime Ganson, Deputy Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appel-lees.
    Before: LEAVY, SILVERMAN, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Kevin Dean Brewer, AKA Michael Green, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to pay the filing fee after revoking Brewer’s in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status because he has three strikes under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1118 n.6 (9th Cir. 2005). We vacate and remand.

The district court revoked Brewer’s IFP status because it concluded that Brewer had filed three actions that had been dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim, and that he did not allege that he was in imminent danger of serious physical harm. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). However, one of the dismissals that the district court counted as a strike was dismissed as barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). Because it is unclear whether that prior action included a claim that both sounded in habeas and sought injunctive relief, we vacate and remand for further proceedings to determine whether the dismissal of that action as Hecfc-barred constitutes a strike. See Washington v. L.A. Cty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 833 F.3d 1048, 1055-58 (9th Cir. 2016) (holding that a dismissal of an action that includes a claim that both sounds in habeas and seeks in-junctive relief does not constitute a strike).

Brewer’s motion for appointment of counsel, filed on May 2, 2016, is denied.

The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal,

VACATED and REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.