Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-02055/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-02055-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LONNIE DONELL PERKINS,

Plaintiff,

v. 

F. HARTWICK, 

Defendant.

No. 2: 22-cv-2055 KJN P

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action. Pending 

before the court is plaintiff’s “request to proceed under in forma pauperis previously granted.” 

(ECF No. 1 at 7.) Plaintiff contends that he should not be required to pay another filing fee for 

this action raising claims that were previously dismissed based on his failure to exhaust 

administrative remedies.1

 (Id.) For the reasons stated herein, the undersigned recommends that 

plaintiff’s request be denied. 

 Plaintiff filed his complaint on November 15, 2022. (Id.) The only named defendant is 

Correctional Officer Hartwick. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff alleges that on December 7, 2017, defendant 

1

 Prisoners granted in forma pauperis status are assessed an initial partial filing fee of 20 percent 

of the greater of (a) the average monthly deposits to their trust account; or (b) the average 

monthly balance in their account for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of their

action. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Thereafter, they are obligated to make monthly payments in the 

amount of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to their trust accounts. 

Case 2:22-cv-02055-DAD-CSK Document 4 Filed 12/05/22 Page 1 of 4
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2

Hartwick used excessive force against plaintiff. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff did not file an in forma 

pauperis application. 

 In the pending request, plaintiff alleges that his application to proceed in forma pauperis 

was granted in a previous action filed in this court, 2:18-cv-3156 JAM JDP P. (See 18-cv-3156 at 

ECF No. 11.)2 In 18-cv-3156, plaintiff raised the same claim against defendant Hartwick that is 

raised against defendant Hartwick in the instant action. (See 18-cv-3156 at ECF No. 11 

(screening order)). On October 14, 2021, the court granted defendant’s summary judgment 

motion in case 18-cv-3156 based on plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies. (See

18-cv-3156 at ECF Nos. 49, 50.) 

 In the instant action, plaintiff contends that he has now exhausted administrative remedies 

as to his claim against defendant Hartwick. (ECF No. 1 at 3.) 

 In the pending request, plaintiff contends that he should not be required to file another 

application to proceed in forma pauperis in the instant action. (Id. at 7.) Plaintiff contends that 

the in forma pauperis application granted in case 18-cv-3156 should be applied in the instant 

action. (Id.) In support of this argument, plaintiff cites Owens v. Keeling, 461 F.3d 763 (6th Cir. 

2006). 

In Owens, a prisoner refiled a Section 1983 complaint against various prison officials after 

the district court dismissed his initial complaint without prejudice for failure to exhaust. Owens, 

461 F.3d at 772. The prisoner claimed that he should not have to pay a second filing fee in 

connection with the second case. Id. at 772. Agreeing, the Sixth Circuit held that “when a 

prisoner ‘refiles’ a complaint raising the same prison-conditions claims as a complaint that was 

initially dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust under the PLRA, the prisoner need not 

pay an additional filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a).” Id. at 773. The court previously held 

that prisoners filing suits concerning prison conditions were required to allege and show that they 

had exhausted all available state remedies. Id. at 773. District courts were instructed to enforce 

the exhaustion requirement sua sponte if defendants did not raise it by dismissing the complaint 

2 The court may take judicial notice of pleadings from related litigation. Reyn’s Pasta Bella, LLC 

v. Visa USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 741, 746 n. 6 (9th Cir. 2006). 

Case 2:22-cv-02055-DAD-CSK Document 4 Filed 12/05/22 Page 2 of 4
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

3

when the prisoner did not meet this pleading requirement. Id. at 773. The court determined that 

this heightened pleading standard allowed federal district courts to avoid time-consuming 

evidentiary hearings and responsive pleadings. Id. at 773. The court concluded that “[a] prisoner 

who ‘refile[s]’ a complaint alleging the same claims regarding prison conditions after it was 

initially dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust is not ‘instituting’ a suit, but is merely 

following the particular procedure chosen by this court for curing the initial complaint's 

deficiency.” Id. at 773. Accordingly, the court directed the district court to reimburse the 

prisoner the $150.00 he paid when he refiled his complaint. 

In Slaughter v. Carey, 2007 WL 1865501 (E.D. Cal. June 28, 2007), a prisoner sought 

reimbursement of filing fees on the grounds that his previous action, naming the same defendants 

and claims, was dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 2007 WL 1865501, at 

*1. In support of this argument, the prisoner in Slaughter cited Owens. Id. Former Magistrate 

Judge Drozd, who has since been elevated to the District Court, rejected the prisoner’s argument, 

finding Owens inapplicable. Id. The undersigned agrees with the reasoning of Judge Drozd in 

Slaughter and adopts it herein. 

In Slaughter, Judge Drozd found that unlike the plaintiff in Owens, the plaintiff in 

Slaughter was not subject to the heightened-pleading standard the Sixth Circuit then required 

prisoners to meet by pleading and demonstrating exhaustion. 2007 WL 1865501, at *1. Judge 

Drozd observed that in the Ninth Circuit, defendants have always borne the burden of raising and 

proving the affirmative defense of failure to exhaust. Id. (citing Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 

1108, 1119 & n. 13 (9th Cir. 2003).) “Thus, courts in the Ninth Circuit typically determine 

whether the plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies after defendants have been served 

and both parties have filed responsive pleadings.” Id. In Slaughter, Judge Drozd noted that the 

Supreme Court has since invalidated the heightened pleading requirement discussed in Owens. 

Id. at n. 1 (citing Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 216 (2007) (“We conclude the failure to exhaust is 

an affirmative defense under the [Prison Litigation Reform Act], and that inmates are not required 

to specially plead or demonstrate exhaustion in their complaints.”).) 

 Based on Judge Drozd’s reasoning in Slaughter, plaintiff’s request to proceed under the 

Case 2:22-cv-02055-DAD-CSK Document 4 Filed 12/05/22 Page 3 of 4
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

4

application to proceed in forma pauperis previously granted in case 18-cv-3156 should be denied. 

In case 18-cv-3156, as discussed above, the court granted defendant’s summary judgment motion 

on the grounds that plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies. Given the time and 

resources spent by the court addressing case 18-cv-3156, “it is entirely appropriate that [plaintiff] 

be required to pay the filing fee in both cases.” Id. at 2. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall appoint a 

district judge to this action; and 

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s request to proceed under the 

previously granted in forma pauperis application be denied; and plaintiff be ordered to file an in 

forma pauperis application within thirty days of the adoption of these findings and 

recommendations. 

 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 

with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that 

failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Dated: December 2, 2022 

Case 2:22-cv-02055-DAD-CSK Document 4 Filed 12/05/22 Page 4 of 4