Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02373/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02373-2/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

PAUL WILLIAM JENSEN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

M.E. KNOWLES, Warden, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. CIV S-02-2373 JKS P

O R D E R

Plaintiff Paul Jensen, a California state prisoner serving a state prison term, sues various

correctional officers at an institution where Jensen was previously confined, alleging a violation of

various of his constitutional rights. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This Court screened the complaint and

concluded that at least some of Jensen’s claims were viable. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. After service

of process was completed, the State Attorney General’s Office entered an appearance on behalf of

the various correctional officers and moved to dismiss, arguing that Jensen had three prior civil

rights actions dismissed for failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

Two of Jensen’s prior claims clearly qualified as strikes—a point Jensen conceded—since

they were expressly dismissed for failure to state a claim. See Docket No. 45 at 3 (discussing

Jensen’s litigation history). Ultimately, this Court counted a third case as a strike and denied Jensen

in forma pauperis (“I.F.P.”) status. In the third case the trial court dismissed Jensen’s claims under

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) primarily because Jensen was seeking to use a § 1983 suit to challenge a

prior conviction, which Jensen contends was the result of malicious prosecution, i.e., a prosecution

for which the government lacked probable cause and a fortiorari proof beyond reasonable doubt. 

The case was dismissed on the basis of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). This Court

Case 2:02-cv-02373-JKS Document 51 Filed 08/16/05 Page 1 of 3
 The Court dismissed the case without prejudice to Jensen refiling his claims after paying 1

the full filing fee and issued a judgment to that effect. While a dismissal without prejudice is

generally not a final judgment, “[t]he denial of a motion to proceed IFP is appealable as a final

judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.” Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2005). It

appears that Jensen has chosen to stand on the merits of his original I.F.P. application rather than

refiling his claims after paying the full filing fee.

ORDER 

C:\Docum ents and Settings\M Krueger\Local Settings\Tem p\notes101AA1\S-02-2373. 2 005.wpd

considered this dismissal a strike, invoked § 1915(g), denied I.F.P. status, and required Jensen to

prepay a full filing fee, which he apparently declined to do and appealed to the Ninth Circuit

instead.1

The Ninth Circuit has referred the matter back to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a)(3) for a determination of whether the appeal is taken (1) in bad faith or (2) is frivolous. 

Jensen is clearly a frequent filer. He has at least seventeen prior lawsuits against prison officials. 

His litigation posture is confrontational and short on legal or factual support. He is, however,

proceeding pro se. Whether he truly believes he has a meritorious claim worthy of litigation is hard

to say.

The second question is easier to address. Reasonable jurists might differ on whether a Heck

v. Humphrey dismissal should count as a strike. In a sense, Heck teaches that it is a misuse of a

§ 1983 suit to attempt to use it to collaterally attack a prior conviction that has not been previously

and independently set aside. Viewed in this light, a Heck dismissal should count as a strike. On the

other hand, a panel might ponder Aesop’s fable of the boy who cried wolf and wonder whether

continued protection against “imminent danger of serious physical injury” is a sufficient safety valve

where a violation of constitutional rights is alleged and not addressed on its merits. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g). Strictly construed against Defendants, a panel might conclude that a Heck dismissal

presents a mistaken choice of remedy and not a frivolous claim. In short, this Court is not prepared

to say that this aspect of Jensen’s current claim is patently frivolous.

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:02-cv-02373-JKS Document 51 Filed 08/16/05 Page 2 of 3
ORDER 

C:\Docum ents and Settings\M Krueger\Local Settings\Tem p\notes101AA1\S-02-2373. 3 005.wpd

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

This Court DECLINES to certify that Jensen’s appeal is necessarily taken in bad faith or is

frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).

Dated at Anchorage, Alaska, this 16th day of August 2005.

/s/ James K. Singleton, Jr.

JAMES K. SINGLETON, JR. 

United States District Judge 

Case 2:02-cv-02373-JKS Document 51 Filed 08/16/05 Page 3 of 3