Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01112/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01112-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

KEITH THOMAS,

Petitioner,

v.

FEDERAL CONGRESS MEMBER

ENFORCEMENT OF PLRA, et. al.,

Respondents.

 /

CV F 05-1112 REC SMS HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. 1]

Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In his

petition, Petitioner contends that the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) is preventing him

from filing a complaint to redress his grievances against state officials. Petitioner further

contends that the United States Eastern District Court Judges are precluding him from filing a

complaint pursuant to the PLRA. In essence, Petitioner is challenging the “three strikes”

provision of section 1915(g) of Title 28 of the United States Code. 

Writ of habeas corpus relief extends to a person in custody under the authority of the

United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Writ of habeas corpus relief is available if a federal

prisoner can show he is "in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the

United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). The instant petition does not challenge the

constitutionality of Petitioner’s custody and is therefore not cognizable pursuant to § 2241. 

Section 1915 of Title 28 of the United States Code allows certain litigants to pursue civil

litigation without the full prepayment of costs and fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). The PLRA,

Case 1:05-cv-01112-REC -SMS Document 4 Filed 11/09/05 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

1

 The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that Petitioner has been declared to have suffered three

qualifying strikes and is precluded from proceeding in forma pauperis. See Thomas v. Galaza, CV-F-00-5345-AWILJO-P (dismissed for failure to state a claim and/or as frivolous on June 26, 2000); Thomas v. Kim, CV-F-99-6553-

AWI-HGB-P (dismissed for failure to state a claim on August 29, 2000); and Thomas v. Galaza, CV-F-00-5348-

OWW-LJO-P (dismissed for failure to state a claim on November 14, 2000). 

2

however, amended Section 1915 to preclude the privilege of proceeding in forma pauperis “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). “This

subdivision is commonly known as the ‘three strikes’ provision.” Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d

1113, 116 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005). “Pursuant to § 1915(g), a prisoner with three strikes cannot

proceed IFP.” Id. The objective of the PLRA is to further “the congressional goal of reducing

frivolous prisoner litigation in federal court.” Tierney v. Kupers, 128 F.3d 1310, 1312 (9th Cir.

1997.) 

Further, Section 1915(g) has been held to be constitutional. “‘Strikes’ are prior cases or

appeals, brought while the plaintiff was a prisoner, which were dismissed ‘on the ground that

[they were] frivolous, malicious, or fail[ed] to state a claim.” Andrews, 398 F.3d 1t 116 n.1. 

Thus, once a prisoner has accumulated three strikes, he is prohibited by Section 1915(g) from

pursuing any other action in forma pauperis in federal court unless he is in “imminent danger of

serious physical injury.”1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The dismissal of the action does not affect

Petitioner’s substantive rights, nor does it block his access to the courts. The Ninth Circuit has

held that Section 1915(g) does not violate a prisoner’s right of access to the courts, due process

or equal protection; nor does it violate separation of powers principles or operate as an ex post

facto law. Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1179-82 (9th Cir. 1999); see also Andrews, 398

F.3d at 1123 (noting constitutionality of § 1915(g), but recognizing that “serious constitutional

concerns would arise of § 1915(g) were applied to preclude those prisoners who filed actions

who were not ‘frivolous, malicious, or fail[ing] to state a claim’ from proceeding IFP.” Thus,

Petitioner may still pursue any claim after three qualifying dismissals but must do so without the

Case 1:05-cv-01112-REC -SMS Document 4 Filed 11/09/05 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

assistance of the in forma pauperis procedures. 

Moreover, Congress and Judicial Officers are entitled to immunity from suit. The federal

constitution grants legislative immunity explicitly to Congress. Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S.

367, 372-373 (1951). Judges are absolutely immune from damage liability for acts performed in

their official capacities. Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 1986) (en banc) (citing

Bradley v. Fisher, 20 L.Ed 646 (1872); Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967). 

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. The instant petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED; and

2. The Clerk of Court be directed to enter judgment.

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the assigned United States

District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-

304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of

California. Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, 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.” Replies to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after

service of the objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 9, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01112-REC -SMS Document 4 Filed 11/09/05 Page 3 of 3