Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00858/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00858-6/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT DUANE FRANKLIN,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

R. VILLAGRANA, et al., 

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-cv-00858-AWI-MJS (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION DENYING 

DEFENDANT VILLAGRANA’S MOTION TO 

REVOKE PLAINTIFF’S IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS STATUS

(ECF NOS. 25, 35)

Plaintiff Robert Duane Franklin is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis (“IFP”) in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 

10, 2014, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendation that Defendant 

Villagrana’s motion to revoke Plaintiff’s IFP status (ECF No. 25) should be denied. (ECF 

No. 35 at 7:21-22.) Defendant filed objections to the findings and recommendation on 

November 19, 2014. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has 

conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 

Court finds the findings and recommendation to be supported by the record and by proper 

analysis.

The objections do not raise an issue of law or fact under the findings and 

Case 1:13-cv-00858-AWI-MJS Document 40 Filed 12/23/14 Page 1 of 3
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

recommendation and there is no need to modify the findings and recommendation based 

on the objections.

Defendant objects the magistrate judge erred in finding that dismissal of the 2008 

Dudley action (“Dudley”) does not qualify as a strike. Defendant, conceding that dismissal 

of a claim on the merits is not a strike, argues that Dudley was not dismissed on the merits 

but rather because the claim had been previously litigated and thus collaterally estopped.

Defendant points out the Dudley court, in its dismissal order, did not consider the “issue of . 

. . lack of submission of evidence.” (ECF No. 36 at 18-21.) Defendant argues the Dudley

dismissal is the equivalent of a dismissal for failure to state a claim and thus a strike. This 

argument is unavailing.

The Dudley court did not mention Section 1915(g) in its dismissal order. It is not 

apparent that the Dudley court based its dismissal on Section 1915(g). A dismissal does 

not count as a strike merely because a Section 1915(g) basis is suspected. See e.g., 

Tolbert v. Stevenson, 635 F.3d 646, 651 (4th Cir. 2011) (dismissal must be on grounds 

enumerated in Section 1915(g) for a strike to be incurred). Moreover, the utilization of 

summary judgment to develop claim preclusion facts suggests a disposition on the merits. 

See e.g., Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986) (summary judgment 

determines whether there are genuine issues for trial). 

The cases Defendant cites in his objections are not authority that a grant of 

summary judgment based on collateral estoppel is a strike under 28 U.S.C. §1915(g). See 

Martinez v. U.S., 812, F.Supp.2d 1052, 1057 (C.D. Cal. 2010), citing Daniels v. Woodford, 

2008 WL 2079010, *6-7 (C.D. Cal. May 13, 2008) (a case resolved by summary judgment 

does not fall within the plain language of Section 1915(g) as it is not equivalent to a 

dismissal on the grounds that the action is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted); Id. at 1057 (action dismissed as duplicative is not counted as 

strike). 

Defendant also objects that a summary judgment dismissal need not explicitly state 

a 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) basis in order for a strike to accrue. However, 

Case 1:13-cv-00858-AWI-MJS Document 40 Filed 12/23/14 Page 2 of 3
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

a dismissal is not a strike unless it is on a Section 1915(g) basis. See e.g., Hafed v. 

Federal Bureau of Prisons, 635 F.3d 1172, 1178 (10th Cir. 1011) (ambiguous dismissal 

order counts as strike where Section 1915(g) grounds are discussed and dismissal clearly 

fits within Section 1915(g)). The Dudley dismissal order was based on claim preclusion. 

Nothing suggests the Dudley court considered Section 1915(g) and based its dismissal 

thereon. See e.g., Smith v. Veterans Admin., 636 F.3d 1306, 1313 (10th Cir. 2011) 

(dismissal counts as a strike if made because the action if frivolous, malicious, or fails to 

state a claim).

Defendant’s objections lack merit.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Court adopts the findings and recommendation filed on November 10, 

2014 (ECF No. 35), in full, and 

2. Defendant Villagrana’s motion to revoke Plaintiff’s IFP status (ECF No. 25) is 

denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 23, 2014 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00858-AWI-MJS Document 40 Filed 12/23/14 Page 3 of 3