Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02060/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02060-2/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOWELL FINLEY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-2060 MCE JFM P

vs.

J. MINEAU, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil

rights action. The action was filed on October 13, 2005. Plaintiff was granted leave to proceed

in forma pauperis on June 2, 2006. Before the court is defendants’ motion to dismiss this action

on the ground that plaintiff should not have been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Defendants cite three cases filed by plaintiff in the United States District Court for

the Central and Eastern Districts of California and argue that these three prior actions were

dismissed for failure to state a claim, thus barring plaintiff from proceeding in forma pauperis in

this action. Defendants contend that these three dismissals constitute strikes under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g), which, if true, would compel revocation of plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status and

dismissal of this action. 

Case 2:05-cv-02060-MCE -JFM Document 22 Filed 02/01/07 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

 The court may take judicial notice of court records. See MGIC Indem. Corp. v. 1

Weisman, 803 F.2d 500, 504 (9th Cir. 1986).

2

Section 1915 of Title 28, which governs in forma pauperis proceedings in federal

courts, concludes with the following provision:

 In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a

judgment in a civil action or proceeding under this section 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). By the plain language of the statute, the bar on proceeding in forma

pauperis is a determination made with reference to the time a civil action or appeal is submitted

for filing. In making the determination, the court must consider all civil actions and appeals

previously brought by the prisoner in any federal court. Of all actions and appeals previously

brought, the only actions and appeals that count as strikes for purposes of § 1915(g) are those

actions and appeals dismissed on the grounds specified in the statute. Id.

In the present case, plaintiff filed this civil action on October 13, 2005. For

purposes of the court’s § 1915(g) determination, the only relevant cases are those dismissed prior

to October 13, 2005. The court takes judicial notice of the records of the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of California and of the orders of the Central District Court

provided by defendants in support of their motion. These records show that the three cases cited 1

by defendants were dismissed before October 13, 2005 and are therefore relevant to the court’s

§ 1915(g) determination in the present action. The three cases for consideration are the

following:

Order filed April 14, 2003, in Finley v. Stone, et al., No. 2:02-cv4105 R MAN (C.D. Cal.);

Order filed May 23, 2003, in Finley v. Lee, et al., No. 2:02-cv09627 R MAN (C.D. Cal.); and 

Case 2:05-cv-02060-MCE -JFM Document 22 Filed 02/01/07 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

 Unfortunately, defendants did not provide this court with a copy of the Report and 2

Recommendations underlying the February 5, 2003 order. The Report and Recommendation is

also not available through electronic means as it predates the inception of CM/ECF electronic

filing.

3

Order filed July 1, 2005, in Finley v. Quinn, et al., No. 1:04-cv5463 AWI LJO (E.D. Cal.).

(Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss, Exs. A-J.)

Two of the three cases cited by defendants were specifically dismissed for failure

to state a claim and therefore count as a strike for purposes of § 1915(g). In Case No. 02-9627,

filed in the Central District, findings and recommendations issued on April 15, 2003, specifically

finding that plaintiff failed to state any federal claim. (Id. at 4-8 (Defts.’ Exs. E).) These

findings and recommendations were adopted in toto by the district court’s order of May 23, 2003. 

(Defts.’ Ex. F.) In the Fresno Division of the Eastern District findings and recommendations

were issued on May 9, 2005, in Case No. 1:04-cv-5463 AWI LJO, specifically finding that

plaintiff had failed to state a claim. (Defts.’ Ex. H.) Those findings and recommendations were

adopted in full by the district court on July 1, 2005. (Defts.’ Ex. I.) 

Upon consideration of the findings and recommendations adopted in 2:02-cv4105 R MAN, however, the basis of this dismissal was equivocal. (Defts.’ Ex. B.) On February

5, 2003, the Central District issued an order adopting findings, conclusions and

recommendations, stating: 2

1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Count Two against defendant

Parker pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)[unenumerated] is

GRANTED, and all claims against defendant Parker are dismissed

without leave to amend and without prejudice.

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Count One against defendants

Stone, Hurley and Olivas pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) is

GRANTED, and Count One is dismissed, with leave to amend.

(Id. at 2.) However, the court earlier noted that plaintiff had objected to dismissal of Count One

on the basis of failure to state a claim (id. at 1), and plaintiff was granted leave to file an

Case 2:05-cv-02060-MCE -JFM Document 22 Filed 02/01/07 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

4

amended complaint. (Id. at 2.) In addition, plaintiff was warned that failure to timely file an

amended complaint might result in a dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute and/or failure

to comply with the court’s orders, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). (Id.)

Plaintiff was subsequently granted at least two opportunities in which to file an

amended complaint. (Id. at 2-3.) Ultimately, however, the case was dismissed for the reasons set

forth in the April 14, 2003 order and in the February 5, 2003 Order. (Id. at 4.) While it may be

that the district judge intended for Count One to be dismissed for failure to state a claim, such a

result is not clear when reading the April 14, 2003 and the February 5, 2003 orders together. It is

therefore not clear the Central District denial was grounded on anything other than procedural

defects. On the present record, the undersigned is unable to find that case 02-4105-R MAN was

dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted.

Defendants have not demonstrated that plaintiff brought the present case after

having brought three or more prior federal cases that were dismissed on the grounds specified in

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Defendants’ motion for dismissal should therefore be denied.

IT IS RECOMMENDED that:

1. Defendants’ September 13, 2006 motion to dismiss be denied; and

2. Defendants be directed to answer plaintiff’s complaint within twenty days of

any order from the district court adopting these findings and recommendations.

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 twenty

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. A document containing objections

should be entitled “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The

/////

/////

Case 2:05-cv-02060-MCE -JFM Document 22 Filed 02/01/07 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

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

appeal the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: January 31, 2007.

001; finl2060.mtd

Case 2:05-cv-02060-MCE -JFM Document 22 Filed 02/01/07 Page 5 of 5