Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00414/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00414-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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

1

 This case, temporarily assigned to Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on March 10, 2006,

was reassigned to the undersigned on August 29, 2006. By Magistrate Judge Moulds’ order

dated March 31, 2006, plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MANUEL AYALA ALVAREZ,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-0414 FCD EFB PS

vs.

DEPUTY ROBINSON, et al., 

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff, proceeding in this action pro se, was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis

on March 31, 2006.1

 On September 14, 2006, defendants jointly filed a motion to dismiss, which

was heard by the undersigned on October 25, 2006. Attorney Jonathan B. Paul appeared on

behalf of defendants. Plaintiff did not file an opposition, nor did he appear at the hearing. 

Having considered all submitted papers, the court issues the following findings and

recommendations. 

////

////

Case 2:06-cv-00414-FCD-EFB Document 18 Filed 12/12/06 Page 1 of 5
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

2

 On the first page of the complaint, plaintiff lists a post office box as his address and also

lists his phone number. Based on this information, it appears that plaintiff was not incarcerated

when he filed the complaint. 

3

 Accordingly, the court deems defendants’ original argument for dismissal pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) withdrawn. 

2

I. BACKGROUND

This case is proceeding on the complaint filed by plaintiff on February 28, 2006. 

Plaintiff alleges violations of his civil rights in connection with his temporary confinement in the

Sacramento County Main Jail. It appears that plaintiff was released prior to filing this

complaint.2 

The motion to dismiss filed by defendants on September 14, 2006, relies in part on

provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) as a grounds for dismissal.

Specifically, defendants argue that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to

bringing this suit and, therefore, the action is barred under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (mandating

exhaustion of administrative remedies prior to filing a complaint in federal court). At the

hearing, the court noted that this provision of the PLRA applies only to persons who are

incarcerated at the time they file a complaint. See Berry v. Kerik, 366 F.3d 85, 87 (2d Cir. 2003)

(citing Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (2002); Dixon v. Page, 291 F.3d 485, 488-89 (7th Cir.

2002); Harris v. Garner, 216 F.3d 970, 978 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc); Greig v. Goord, 169 F.3d

165, 167 (2d Cir. 1999); Kerr v. Puckett, 138 F.3d 321, 323 (7th Cir. 1998); Doe v. Washington

Co., 150 F.3d 920, 924 (8th Cir. 1998)). Defendants requested, and were granted, the

opportunity to provide a supplemental brief on this issue. Defendants filed that brief on

November 8, 2006, wherein they concurred with the court’s understanding of 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1997e(a).3

 

Nonetheless, defendants still urge the court to dismiss the action. By these findings and

recommendations, the court recommends against dismissal. 

////

Case 2:06-cv-00414-FCD-EFB Document 18 Filed 12/12/06 Page 2 of 5
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

4

 A court may take judicial notice of its own records. United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d

118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980).

5

 Incidentally, the court notes that although plaintiff may be barred from proceeding in

forma pauperis as a prisoner pursuant to § 1915(g), that section does not operate as a wholesale

bar from filing federal actions. Washington v. Gomez, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10026, at *2

(N.D. Cal. 1998) (“[a] prisoner barred from proceeding in forma pauperis pursuant to § 1915(g)

3

II. DISCUSSION

In addition to their arguments concerning the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement,

defendants moved for dismissal on grounds that plaintiff’s lawsuit was barred under 28 U.S.C. §

1915(g). Section 1915(g) prohibits prisoners from bringing an action or proceeding in forma

pauperis “if the prisoner has on 3 or more occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any

facility, brought an action or appeal . . . that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous,

malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. . . .” Defendants cite three

cases filed by plaintiff in this court, all of which were dismissed as frivolous and/or for failure to

state a claim: (1) Civ. S-02-0866 FCD DAD P; (2) Civ. S-02-1913 MCE PAN P; and (3) Civ. S02-2641 WBS GGH P.4

 

Although it appears that plaintiff may be prohibited from filing certain actions in forma

pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the present action is not such a case. Section 1915(g)

applies to prisoners filing suit. Here, plaintiff is proceeding not as a prisoner, but simply as a pro

se plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h) (“As used in this section, the term ‘prisoner’ means any

person incarcerated or detained in any facility who is accused of, convicted of, sentenced for or

adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law . . . .”) (emphasis added). Thus, much like

42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) of the PLRA, section 1915(g) only applies to persons incarcerated at the

time the action is filed. See, e.g., Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1180 (9th Cir. 1999)

(discussing fairness of § 1915(g) in the context of non-prisoners not subject to that provision). 

Again, the court notes that there is no indication that plaintiff was incarcerated when he filed the

present action.5

 Accordingly, defendants’ motion to dismiss on this ground must be denied. 

Case 2:06-cv-00414-FCD-EFB Document 18 Filed 12/12/06 Page 3 of 5
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

may proceed under the fee provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1911-14 applicable to everyone else.”)

(citing Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996)). 

4

In their supplemental brief, defendants urge the court to dismiss as a sanction for

plaintiff’s failure to oppose their motion to dismiss, and because plaintiff failed to appear at the

hearing or otherwise provide proof that he was not incarcerated when he filed this action. 

Local Rule 78-230(c) provides that an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the

granting of a motion must be filed fourteen days before the noticed hearing date and the plaintiff

has violated this rule. Although Local Rule 11-110 provides for imposition of sanctions,

including where appropriate the sanction of dismissal, for violation of the rules or an order, the

court finds that plaintiff’s failure to file an opposition is not an appropriate basis for the ultimate

sanction of dismissal.

“Before dismissing [an] action, the district court is required to weigh several factors: ‘(1)

the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its

docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of

cases of their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.’” Ghazali v. Moran, 46

F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir.

1986)). The undersigned has weighed these factors and finds that dismissal, at this early stage of

the proceedings, is too drastic a sanction. There is not an established history of prior failures to

comply with the rules or scheduling orders and the substantive merits of plaintiff’s claims have

yet to be addressed either by the court or by defendants. Accordingly, the court recommends

that defendants’ motion to dismiss based on this ground be denied. However, plaintiff is hereby

admonished that he must comply with the local rules of this court, and Rule 78-230(c)) in

particular in the event defendants file any additional motions. The failure to comply with these

rules constitutes grounds for sanctions, including the ultimate sanction of dismissal of the

complaint.

////

Case 2:06-cv-00414-FCD-EFB Document 18 Filed 12/12/06 Page 4 of 5
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

5

III. CONCLUSION

In accordance with the foregoing, IT IS RECOMMENDED that defendants’ motion to

dismiss be denied. 

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

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within ten (10)

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party 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.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten (10) days after service of the objections. The parties are

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

District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst,

951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: December 12, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-00414-FCD-EFB Document 18 Filed 12/12/06 Page 5 of 5