Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01533/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01533-0/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

GREGORIO C. FUNTANILLA,

NO. CIV. S 03-1533 MCE CMK P

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

R. RAMOS, et al.,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a

civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The

matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

On January 6, 2005, Magistrate Judge Kellison filed the

findings and recommendations herein, which were served on

Plaintiff and contained notice to Plaintiff that any objections

to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within ten

(10) days. On January 20, 2005, Plaintiff filed a motion for

extension of time to file objections. The Court granted

Case 2:03-cv-01533-MCE -CMK Document 44 Filed 04/19/05 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

Plaintiff ten (10) additional days to file objections to the

findings and recommendations. Plaintiff filed his objections on

March 14, 2005, and Defendants filed a response to Plaintiff’s

objections on March 16, 2005.

In his January 6, 2005, decision, Judge Kellison recommended

that Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status be revoked and the case

be dismissed in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (“In no event

shall a prisoner bring a civil action . . . under this section if

the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while

incarcerated . . . brought an action . . . that was dismissed on

the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a

claim upon which relief can be granted . . .”) 

In his objection to Judge Kellison’s findings and

recommendations, Plaintiff argues that the Court erred in finding

that four of Plaintiff’s thirty actions (filed in this court

alone) qualify as “strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Andrews

v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005). 

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

and Local Rule 72-304, the Court has conducted a de novo review

of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file in light

of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Andrews, the Court finds that

the following cases qualify as “strikes” under 28 U.S.C. §

1915(g): 1) Funtinella v. Tieman, et. al., 92-CV-1017 (dismissed

as frivolous by the Court’s order of October 10, 1992); 2)

Funtanilla v. Jones, 95-CV-4236 (malicious - dismissed pursuant

to Rule 11(c) by the Court’s order of May 8, 1996); 3) Funtanilla

v. Schneider, et. al., 92-CV-1975 (malicious – dismissed pursuant

to Rule 11(c) by the Court’s order of April 7, 1997); and 4)

Case 2:03-cv-01533-MCE -CMK Document 44 Filed 04/19/05 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

Funtanilla v. Ninevala, et. al., 98-CV-6365 (dismissed for

failure to state a claim by the Court’s order of March 14, 2001). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. The findings and recommendations filed January 6, 2005,

are adopted in full; 

2. Defendant’s August 13, 2004, motion to revoke Plaintiff’s

in forma pauperis status is GRANTED;

3. Defendant’s August 13, 2004, motion to dismiss pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) is GRANTED;

4. This action is dismissed without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 18, 2005

__________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:03-cv-01533-MCE -CMK Document 44 Filed 04/19/05 Page 3 of 3