Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01350/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01350-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

WO MDR

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Edward F. Parks, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Charles Ryan, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 12-1350-PHX-GMS (DKD)

ORDER

On June 22, 2012, Plaintiff Edward F. Parks, who is confined in the Arizona State

Prison Complex-Yuma in San Luis, Arizona, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint and an

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In a July 9, 2012 Order, the Court denied the

deficient Application to Proceed and gave Plaintiff 30 days to either pay the filing fee or file

a complete Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 

On July 30, 2012, Plaintiff filed a “Notice of Complain” regarding the processing of

his request for a copy of his certified six-month trust account statement. On August 6, 2012,

he filed a “Motion to Pre[s]ent Account 6 mo Print-Out” (Doc. 6), which contains a certified

statement of account. On August 13, 2012, Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Show Medical

Violations” (Doc. 7). On August 20, 2012, he filed a second Application to Proceed In

Forma Pauperis (Doc. 8).

Case 2:12-cv-01350-GMS--DKD Document 9 Filed 09/04/12 Page 1 of 4
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 -

To the extent Plaintiff is seeking in his “Motion to Pre[s]ent 6 mo Print-Out” to have

the Court accept his certified six-month account statement, the Court will grant his Motion.

The Court will deny the second Application to Proceed and will dismiss this action pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Because the Court is dismissing the action, the Court will deny as

moot the “Motion to Show Medical Violations.”

I. “Three Strikes Provision” of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

A prisoner may not bring a civil action or appeal a civil judgment 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). 

“[Section] 1915(g) should be used to deny a prisoner’s IFP status only when, after

careful evaluation of the order dismissing an action, and other relevant information, the

district court determines that the action was dismissed because it was frivolous, malicious

or failed to state a claim.” Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005). “In some

instances, the district court docket records may be sufficient to show that a prior dismissal

satisfies at least one of the criteria under § 1915(g) and therefore counts as a strike.” Id. at

1120.

At least three of Plaintiff’s prior actions were dismissed for failure to state a claim.

See Parks v. Jensen, CV-07-8107-PCT-FJM (DKD) (D. Ariz. Sept. 2, 2008 Order of

dismissal); Parks v. Holy, CV-09-406-HE (W.D. Okla. Oct. 14, 2009 Order of dismissal);

and Parks v. Cornell Corrections of Oklahoma, CV-09-450-HE (W.D. Okla. Sept. 1, 2009

Order of dismissal). See also Parks v. McCluskey, 10-CV-8055-PCT-GMS (DKD) (May 24,

2012 Order listing Plaintiff’s strikes and dismissing case pursuant to § 1915(g)). Therefore,

Plaintiff may not bring a civil action without complete prepayment of the $350.00 filing fee

unless he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

. . . .

Case 2:12-cv-01350-GMS--DKD Document 9 Filed 09/04/12 Page 2 of 4
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 -

II. Imminent Danger

A plaintiff who has three or more strikes may not bring a civil action without complete

prepayment of the $350.00 filing fee unless he is in imminent danger of serious physical

injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). To meet the “imminent danger” requirement, the “threat or

prison condition [must be] real and proximate,” Ciarpaglini v. Saini, 352 F.3d 328, 330 (7th

Cir. 2003) (quoting Lewis v. Sullivan, 279 F.3d 526, 531 (7th Cir. 2002)), and the allegations

must be “specific or credible.” Kinnell v. Graves, 265 F.3d 1125, 1128 (10th Cir. 2001). 

“[T]he availability of the [imminent danger] exception turns on the conditions a

prisoner faced at the time the complaint was filed, not some earlier or later time” Andrews

v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2007). “[T]he exception applies if the complaint

makes a plausible allegation that the prisoner faced ‘imminent danger of serious physical

injury’ at the time of filing.” Id. at 1055. Claims concerning an “imminent danger of serious

physical injury” cannot be triggered solely by complaints of past abuse. See Ashley v.

Dilworth, 147 F.3d 715, 717 (8th Cir. 1998); Luedtke v. Bertrand, 32 F. Supp. 2d 1074, 1077

(E.D. Wis. 1999).

Plaintiff does not allege that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury and

his allegations no not support such an allegation—his claims relate to past exposures to

pepper spray. Thus, the Court will deny the second Application to Proceed and will dismiss

without prejudice Plaintiff’s Complaint and this action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). If

Plaintiff wishes to reassert these claims in the future, he must prepay the entire $350.00

filing fee when he files his action.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Plaintiff’s “Motion to Pre[s]ent Account 6 mo Print-Out” (Doc. 6) is granted.

(2) Plaintiff’s second Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 8) is

denied.

(3) Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) and this action are dismissed without

prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). If Plaintiff wishes to reassert these claims in the

future, he must prepay the entire $350.00 filing fee when he files his action.

Case 2:12-cv-01350-GMS--DKD Document 9 Filed 09/04/12 Page 3 of 4
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 -

(4) Plaintiff’s “Motion to Show Medical Violations” (Doc. 7) is denied as moot.

(5) The Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly and close this case.

DATED this 4th day of September, 2012.

Case 2:12-cv-01350-GMS--DKD Document 9 Filed 09/04/12 Page 4 of 4