Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00344/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00344-2/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

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DESHONE SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

OFFICER JENKENS et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-0344 KJN P (TEMP)

ORDER AND

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (“IFP”) with this civil 

rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is defendants’ motion 

to revoke plaintiff’s IFP status pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Also pending before the court 

are plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment. The court addresses each of these motions in turn. 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is proceeding on a second amended complaint against defendants Jenkens and 

Pogue. At screening, then-Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd found that plaintiff’s complaint 

appeared to state a cognizable claim for retaliation under the First Amendment against defendant 

Jenkens. Judge Drozd also found that plaintiff’s complaint appeared to state a cognizable claim 

for excessive use of force under the Eighth Amendment against defendants Jenkens and Pogue. 

(Doc. Nos. 16 & 17.)

////

Case 2:15-cv-00344-WBS-DB Document 41 Filed 12/07/15 Page 1 of 6
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

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO REVOKE PLAINTIFF’S IFP STATUS

In defendants’ motion to revoke plaintiff’s IFP status, defense counsel argues that plaintiff 

has accrued at least three strikes for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (Defs.’ Mem. of P. & A. at 

3-8.) Specifically, defense counsel characterizes the following causes of action as “strikes”:

1

 Strike 1: Smith v. Dickson, No. 2:14-cv-3002 CKD (E.D. Cal.)

Plaintiff commenced this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on December 30, 2014. The

court twice dismissed plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim, and on June 5, 

2015, the court dismissed this action without prejudice because plaintiff had failed to cure 

the defects of his prior complaints. (Defs.’ Req. for Judicial Notice Ex. 1.)

 Strike 2: Smith v. Cser, No. 2:07-cv-1330 LKK CMK (E.D. Cal.)

Plaintiff commenced this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on July 6, 2007. The assigned 

Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending dismissal of 

plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim, and on April 15, 2008, the assigned 

District Judge adopted the findings and recommendations in full and dismissed this action 

for failure to state a claim. (Defs.’ Req. for Judicial Notice Ex. 2.)

 Strike 3: Smith v. Becerra, No. 1:08-cv-1601 (E.D. Cal.)

Plaintiff commenced this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on October 23, 2008. On July 

30, 2009, the court dismissed this action without prejudice for failure to exhaust 

administrative remedies prior to filing suit. (Defs.’ Req. for Judicial Notice Ex. 3.) 

“The burden of establishing that three strikes have accrued is on the party challenging the 

prisoner’s right to proceed in forma pauperis.” Knapp v. Hogan, 738 F.3d 1106, 1110 (9th Cir. 

2013). See also Silva v. Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1097, n. 3 (9th Cir. 2010); O’Neal v. Price, 531 

F.3d 1146, 1151 (9th Cir. 2008); Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1116 (9th Cir. 2005). In this 

case, defendants have failed to carry their burden. Specifically, defense counsel has identified

Smith v. Dickson, No. 2:14-cv-3002 CKD (E.D. Cal.) as a strike. However, the court dismissed 

 

1

 Defendants have filed a request for judicial notice of their exhibits, which consist of copies of 

docket sheets and court orders from plaintiff’s previously-filed cases. Pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Evidence 201, the court will grant defendants’ request.

Case 2:15-cv-00344-WBS-DB Document 41 Filed 12/07/15 Page 2 of 6
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

that case on June 5, 2015, well after plaintiff commenced this action on February 10, 2015. The 

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has made clear that § 1915(g) applies “to claims dismissed prior

to the current proceedings.” Tierney v. Kupers, 128 F.3d 1310,1311 (9th Cir. 1997). 

Accordingly, because defendants have failed to meet their burden of establishing that this prior 

action qualifies as a strike, the court cannot count it as such.

Defendants have identified two of plaintiff’s other prior civil actions as strikes. However, 

the court need not decide whether these actions constitute strikes because even assuming 

arguendo that they do, at most, defendants will have identified only two of plaintiff’s prior civil 

actions that qualify as strikes. Accordingly, the court recommends that defendants’ motion to 

revoke plaintiff’s IFP status be denied.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiff has filed two virtually identical motions for summary judgment. Under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), a court must “grant summary judgment if the movant shows there 

is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of 

law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A party asserting that a fact is not “genuinely disputed” must support 

that assertion by

citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including 

depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits 

or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of 

the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other 

materials.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1). See also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986) (“Under 

summary judgment practice, the moving party always bears the initial responsibility of informing 

the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of the pleadings, 

depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, 

which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.”) (citation and 

internal quotation marks omitted). 

////

////

//// 

Case 2:15-cv-00344-WBS-DB Document 41 Filed 12/07/15 Page 3 of 6
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

In addition, Local Rule 260(a) requires that a motion for summary judgment 

be accompanied by a “Statement of Undisputed Facts” that shall 

enumerate discretely each of the specific material facts relied upon 

in support of the motion and cite the particular portions of any 

pleading, affidavit, deposition, interrogatory answer, admission, or 

other document relied upon to establish that fact. 

E.D. Cal. L.R. 260(a).

In this case, plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment are disorganized, difficult to 

decipher, and defective in that they do not comply with the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 or 

Local Rule 260. Although the Ninth Circuit has “held consistently that courts should construe 

liberally motion papers and pleadings filed by pro se inmates and should avoid applying summary 

judgment rules strictly,” Thomas v. Ponder, 611 F.3d 1144, 1150 (9th Cir. 2010), the Ninth 

Circuit has also made clear that a pro se litigant must “abide by the rules of the court in which he 

litigates.” Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1223 (9th Cir. 2007) (quotation omitted). Plaintiff 

has failed to “identify[] each claim or defense – or the part of each claim or defense – on which 

summary judgment is sought.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Plaintiff’s motions are also completely 

devoid of citation(s) to legal authority or to his attached exhibits. As a result, this court cannot 

reasonably expect defendants to respond plaintiff’s argument in its current form let alone make a 

finding that plaintiff has affirmatively demonstrated with his motions that no reasonable trier of 

fact could find other than for him. See Soremekun v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., 509 F.3d 978, 984 

(9th Cir. 2007). Given the early stage of these proceedings, the court recommends that plaintiff's 

motions for summary judgment be denied without prejudice. If plaintiff chooses to move for 

summary judgment at a later date, the court cautions him that his motion must conform to the 

requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and Local Rule 260. 

Finally, defendants filed a motion for an extension of time to oppose plaintiff’s motions

for summary judgment until after the court has disposed of defendants’ motion to revoke 

plaintiff’s IFP status. In light of the discussion herein, the court relieves defendants of having to 

file any opposition to plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment and denies defendants’ motion 

for an extension of time as unnecessary.

Case 2:15-cv-00344-WBS-DB Document 41 Filed 12/07/15 Page 4 of 6
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

OTHER MATTERS

Plaintiff has filed an inordinate number of documents styled “Notice” in which he appears 

to complain about various conditions of his confinement unrelated to his claims against the 

defendants in this action. It is not clear why plaintiff has filed these notices or what relief 

plaintiff seeks from the court. However, if plaintiff experiences problems at his institution of 

incarceration, he should pursue an inmate appeal regarding his complaints. See Cal. Code Regs. 

tit. 15, § 3084.1(a) (prisoners may appeal “any policy, decision, action, condition, or omission by 

the department or its staff that the inmate or parolee can demonstrate as having a material adverse 

effect upon his or her health, safety, or welfare.”). 

Plaintiff is cautioned that improper and superfluous filings impede the progress of a case, 

so the court may impose restrictions on plaintiff’s filings if he does not exercise appropriate 

restraint in the future. See De Long v. Jennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 1990) (“There is 

strong precedent establishing the inherent power of federal courts to regulate the activities of 

abusive litigants by imposing carefully tailored restrictions under the appropriate circumstances.”) 

(quoting Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F.2d 351, 352 (10th Cir. 1989)). As noted above, although 

plaintiff is proceeding pro se, he is required to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

and the Local Rules of Court. Plaintiff’s failure to obey court orders and the local and federal 

rules and meet his responsibilities in prosecuting this action may justify dismissal, including 

dismissal with prejudice. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1992).

CONCLUSION

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ request for judicial notice (Doc. No. 25) is granted; 

2. Defendants’ motion for an extension of time to oppose plaintiff’s motions for summary 

judgment (Doc. No. 39) is denied as unnecessary; and 

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to randomly assign a United States District Judge to 

this action. 

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Defendants’ motion to revoke plaintiff’s IFP status (Doc. No. 25) be denied; and

Case 2:15-cv-00344-WBS-DB Document 41 Filed 12/07/15 Page 5 of 6
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

2. Plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment (Doc. Nos. 23 & 37) be denied without 

prejudice.

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

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

objections shall be filed and served within fourteen 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. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Dated: December 7, 2015

smit0344.57ifp

Case 2:15-cv-00344-WBS-DB Document 41 Filed 12/07/15 Page 6 of 6