Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03692/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03692-0/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID HUNTER,

Plaintiff,

v.

IMMINENT DANGER INCIDENTS

etc., et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-3692 MHP (pr)

ORDER ON INITIAL REVIEW

INTRODUCTION

David Hunter, a prisoner currently incarcerated that Folsom State Prison, has filed a

pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and applied to proceed in forma

pauperis. This action is now before the court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

DISCUSSION

A. The Frequent Filer Problem

A prisoner may not bring a civil action in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 "if

the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility,

brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds

that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,

unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury." 28 U.S.C. §

1915(g). For purposes of a dismissal that may be counted under § 1915(g), the phrase "fails

to state a claim on which relief may be granted" parallels the language of Federal Rule of

Case 3:07-cv-03692-MHP Document 11 Filed 01/18/08 Page 1 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and carries the same interpretation, the word "frivolous" refers to a

case that is "'of little weight or importance: having no basis in law or fact,'" and the word

"malicious" refers to a case "filed with the 'intention or desire to harm another.'" Andrews v.

King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005) ("Andrews I") (citation omitted). Only cases

within one of these three categories can be counted as strikes for § 1915(g) purposes, so the

mere fact that Hunter has filed many cases does not alone warrant dismissal under § 1915(g). 

See id. Rather, dismissal of an action under § 1915(g) should only occur when, "after careful

evaluation of the order dismissing an [earlier] action, and other relevant information, the

district court determines that the action was dismissed because it was frivolous, malicious or

failed to state a claim." Id.

Andrews I requires that the prisoner be given notice of the potential applicability of 

§ 1915(g), by either the district court or the defendants, but also requires the prisoner to bear

the ultimate burden of persuasion that § 1915(g) does not bar pauper status for him. Id.

Andrews I implicitly allows the court to sua sponte raise the § 1915(g) problem, but requires

the court to notify the prisoner of the earlier dismissals it considers to support a § 1915(g)

dismissal and allow the prisoner an opportunity to be heard on the matter before dismissing

the action. See id. at 1120. A dismissal under § 1915(g) means that a prisoner cannot

proceed with his action as a pauper under § 1915(g), but he still may pursue his claims if he

pays the full filing fee at the outset of the action.

A review of the dismissal orders and docket sheets in Hunter's prior prisoner actions

in this court reveals that Hunter has had at least three such cases dismissed on the ground that

they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

Hunter is now given notice that the court believes the following dismissals may be counted

as dismissals for purposes of § 1915(g): (1) Hunter v. Marshall, N. D. Cal. Case No. C 95-

982 MHP (civil rights action dismissed as factually and legally frivolous), (2) Hunter v. First

Appellate District, N. D. Cal. Case No. C 95-4258 MHP (pleading filed on § 2255 motion

form construed as a civil rights action and dismissed as frivolous); and (3) Hunter v.

Mandeville, N. D. Cal. Case No. C 95-2443 MHP (civil rights action dismissed for failure to

Case 3:07-cv-03692-MHP Document 11 Filed 01/18/08 Page 2 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

state a claim). The court made its evaluation of the first two cases based on the dismissal

orders and the third case based on the docket sheet. See Andrews I, 398 F.3d at 1120.

In light of these dismissals, Hunter is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing why

pauper status should not be denied and this action should not be dismissed pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g). In the alternative to showing cause why this action should not be

dismissed, Hunter may avoid dismissal by paying the full $350.00 filing fee by the deadline. 

The complaint Hunter filed suggests that he may be trying to fit within the imminent

danger exception to § 1915(g). If he wants to do so, he needs to describe the facts showing

the imminent physical danger, rather that merely asserting the conclusion that he is in

imminent physical danger. It will suffice if he "makes a plausible allegation that the prisoner

faced 'imminent danger of serious physical injury' at the time of filing." See Andrews v.

Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1055 (9th Cir. 2007) ("Andrews II"). Because it appears that

Hunter's complaint concerns something at Pelican Bay, and he was transferred to another

prison before he filed this action, he should be particularly careful to show the connection

between the alleged imminent danger and the claims he asserts in his amended complaint as

the statute requires that he show he was in imminent danger at the time he filed his

complaint. 

B. Review of The Complaint

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a

prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental

entity. See 28 U.S.C. §1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable claims, and

dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See

28 U.S.C. §1915A(b)(1),(2). 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that

a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated and (2) that the

violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins,

487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

Case 3:07-cv-03692-MHP Document 11 Filed 01/18/08 Page 3 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Under a very liberal interpretation of Hunter's complaint, it appears that he is

attempting to allege that he is in "imminent danger" for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and

wants earlier-dismissed cases reopened. The complaint alleges that he "did a follow-up

pertaining to the order [he] received from the court dated 2-17-07 to file a affidavit which

was presented over a month ago" to proceed in forma pauperis "pertaining to imminent

danger incidents at Pelican Bay State Prison and 17 years false imprisonment by the state." 

Complaint, p. 3 (errors in source). He asks the court to "trace the two affidavits that have

been presented of a et seq proceeding dated 2-17-07." Id. (errors in source). In the place on

the form complaint where the plaintiff is directed to write the full name of the defendant(s),

plaintiff wrote "imminent danger incidents at Pelican Bay State Prison on the record dated 2-

17-07." Complaint, p. 1. 

The complaint has several deficiencies. First, the central point of the complaint (i.e.,

that he filed an affidavit in response to a court order) does not comport with the court's

records. The court has no record of any filing by Hunter in 2007 and no record of having

issued an order in any of Hunter's cases in 2007. To the extent Hunter is requesting the court

to investigate why the filings did not reach the courthouse, the request is denied because it is

the plaintiff's responsibility to investigate and present his case. (If his contention concerns a

filing and order in another court, he may wish to pursue the matter in that other court.)

Second, there is no defendant named. 

Third, no claim for relief is stated. Alleging that the plaintiff is in imminent danger

does not state a claim for relief under § 1983. It is a necessary allegation for a frequent filer

to surmount the hurdle of § 1915(g) – i.e., the frequent filer plaintiff has to make a plausible

claim that he is in imminent danger to be allowed to proceed as a pauper – but does not itself

mean that the plaintiff has suffered a violation of any right secured by the Constitution or

laws of the United States. Hunter must file an amended complaint to attempt to allege a

claim for relief. For each claim, he must allege the facts showing his entitlement to relief

from the defendant(s). He should allege what happened to him, the date on which the event

occurred, identify each defendant he proposes to hold liable, and describe what each

Case 3:07-cv-03692-MHP Document 11 Filed 01/18/08 Page 4 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

5

defendant did or failed to do that caused him harm. He also may wish to identify the

constitutional right that allegedly was violated. 

Fourth, to the extent Hunter is trying to state a claim for denial of access to the courts,

it fails to do so because the complaint does not allege an actual injury resulting from any

failure of his affidavits to reach the court. A constitutional right of access to the courts

exists, but to establish a claim for any violation of the right of access to the courts, the

prisoner must show that there was an inadequacy in the prison's legal access program that

caused him an actual injury. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 350-51 (1996). To prove an

actual injury, the prisoner must show that the inadequacy hindered him in presenting a nonfrivolous claim concerning his conviction or conditions of confinement. See id. at 355. 

Examples of impermissible hindrances include: a prisoner whose complaint was dismissed

for failure to satisfy some technical requirement which, because of deficiencies in the

prison's legal assistance facilities, he could not have known; and a prisoner who had

"suffered arguably actionable harm" that he wished to bring to the attention of the court, but

was so stymied by the inadequacies of the prison's services that he was unable even to file a

complaint. See id. at 351. In his amended complaint, Hunter may attempt to plead a denial

of access to the courts claim, but is cautioned that he must identify the deficiency in the legal

program and allege an actual injury to state a claim for relief. 

Finally, plaintiff is cautioned that administrative remedies must be exhausted for each

claim asserted in a federal civil rights complaint before the action is filed. See 42 U.S.C. §

1997e(a).

C. Miscellaneous Motions

Plaintiff's "pleading motion in accordance to imminent danger at Pelican Bay State

Prison," "pleading motion to reopen imminent danger cases at Pelican Bay State Prison by

the regional commissioner in accordance to preliminary injunction/TRO" are DENIED. 

(Docket # 8, # 9.) The court will not consider any motions by plaintiff until a proper

pleading is on file and the court determines whether plaintiff may proceed as a pauper.

 

Case 3:07-cv-03692-MHP Document 11 Filed 01/18/08 Page 5 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

6

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff must show his entitlement to proceed as a pauper and must amend his

complaint. If he fails to do either, this action will be dismissed. 

Plaintiff's response to the order to show cause why pauper status should not be denied

must be filed no later than February 22, 2008. 

The complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and is dismissed

with leave to amend. Plaintiff must file an amended complaint no later than February 22,

2008, and must include the caption and civil case number used in this order and the words

AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. The amended complaint must cure the

deficiencies identified in this order. Failure to file the amended complaint by the deadline

will result in dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 17, 2008 _____________________

 Marilyn Hall Patel

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-03692-MHP Document 11 Filed 01/18/08 Page 6 of 6