Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-01086/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-01086-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEROME L. GRIMES,

Plaintiff,

 v.

OFFICER BARBER, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. 10-01086 CW

ORDER GRANTING

MOTION TO PROCEED

IN FORMA PAUPERIS

AND DISMISSING

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Jerome L. Grimes applies for leave to proceed in

forma pauperis (IFP). The matter was decided on the papers. 

Having considered all of the papers filed by Plaintiff, the Court

GRANTS the application to proceed IFP and dismisses the complaint.

DISCUSSION

A court may authorize a plaintiff to prosecute an action in

federal court without prepayment of fees or security if the

plaintiff submits an affidavit showing that he or she is unable to

pay such fees or provide such security. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

Plaintiff has submitted the required documentation, and it is

evident from his application that his assets and income are

insufficient to enable him to prosecute the action. Accordingly,

his application to proceed without the payment of the filing fee is

Case 4:10-cv-01086-CW Document 18 Filed 08/06/10 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

GRANTED. 

The Court’s grant of Plaintiff's application to proceed IFP,

however, does not mean that he may continue to prosecute his

complaint. A court is under a continuing duty to dismiss a case

filed without the payment of the filing fee whenever it determines

that the action “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state

a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary

relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). Because a dismissal pursuant to 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B) is not a dismissal on the merits, but rather an

exercise of the court's discretion under the IFP statute, the

dismissal does not prejudice the filing of a paid complaint making

the same allegations. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992).

This case arises from events that were the subject of one of

Plaintiff’s previous cases, Grimes v. Barber, et al., C 09-0411 CW. 

In C 09-0411 CW, Plaintiff alleged that he was injured in

connection with a jay-walking incident on the San Francisco State

University campus by the same Defendants that are named in the

instant complaint. On September 16, 2009, a settlement conference

was held in C 09-0411 CW before Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Laporte

and the parties agreed to a settlement. (C 09-0411 CW, Docket No.

48). On September 17, 2009, the Court issued a conditional order

of dismissal which indicated that if, within ninety days, any party

certified to the Court that the agreed amount of consideration had

not been delivered, the order would be vacated and the case would

be set for trial. (C 09-0411 CW, Docket No. 49). On September 21,

2009, Plaintiff filed a motion for relief from settlement, which

Case 4:10-cv-01086-CW Document 18 Filed 08/06/10 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

was heard by Magistrate Judge Laporte. On December 23, 2009, the

Court adopted Magistrate Judge Laporte’s report and recommendation

and denied Plaintiff’s motion for relief from settlement. (C 09-

0411 CW, Docket Nos. 58, 60). On January 4, 2010, Plaintiff filed

a declaration stating that he had not received from Defendants,

within ninety days from the date of the Conditional Order of

Dismissal, the agreed consideration for the settlement of his case. 

(C 09-0411 CW, Docket # 62). On February 11, 2010, the Court

issued an Order Regarding Plaintiff’s Declaration. The Court noted

that Defendants’ counsel had submitted a declaration stating that,

until she received the Court's December 23, 2009 order denying

Plaintiff's motion for relief from settlement, she did not know

whether the settlement would be vacated by court order. She had

sent Plaintiff the settlement check immediately after the Court

denied Plaintiff’s motion. The Court found that defense counsel

reasonably waited until the Court ruled on Plaintiff's motion

before sending him the settlement check. The Court further found

that, by filing his January 4, 2010 declaration, Plaintiff was

attempting once again to obtain relief from settlement. The Court

indicated that it had ruled on that issue, that it would not

revisit it and that any further papers submitted by Plaintiff

attempting to vacate his settlement would be returned to him by the

clerk. (C 09-0411 CW, Docket No. 66). 

In the instant complaint, Plaintiff alleges that, in C 09-0411

CW, the Court improperly denied his motion to set aside the

settlement because Defendants failed to pay him or to expunge his

record of false charges within ninety days of the Conditional

Case 4:10-cv-01086-CW Document 18 Filed 08/06/10 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Dismissal Order. Therefore, Plaintiff is suing for police

brutality and defamation of character arising from the jay-walking

incident.

In this lawsuit, Plaintiff is again attempting to re-litigate

the issues that he asserted and settled in C 09-0411 CW. As stated

in the 2009 Order, Plaintiff may not keep litigating these same

issues. Therefore, his complaint is dismissed.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion to proceed in

forma pauperis is granted and his complaint is dismissed. 

Plaintiff’s motion to set a case management conference is denied. 

(Docket # 16). The Clerk of the Court shall close this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 6, 2010 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:10-cv-01086-CW Document 18 Filed 08/06/10 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEROME GRIMES,

Plaintiff,

 v.

BARBER et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV10-01086 CW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court,

Northern District of California.

That on August 6, 2010, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said

envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located

in the Clerk's office.

Jerome L. Grimes

263 Vernon Street

San Francisco, CA 94132

Dated: August 6, 2010

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Ronnie Hersler, Adm. Law Clerk

Case 4:10-cv-01086-CW Document 18 Filed 08/06/10 Page 5 of 5