Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00646/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00646-1/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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Dale Maisano, 

Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

Corizon Health Inc., et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV 15-0646-PHX-SMM (MHB) 

 O R D E R 

I. Background

 Plaintiff Dale Maisano, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison ComplexFlorence in Florence, Arizona, has abused the legal process egregiously and often. He is 

subject to a February 20, 2014 Injunction Order that enjoins Plaintiff from filing or 

lodging more than one in forma pauperis lawsuit per month in this Court, directs the 

Clerk of Court to refuse to accept any transfers pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) of cases 

filed by Plaintiff in other Districts, and reiterates and supplements the terms of the 1992 

Restraining Order in Maisano v. Lewis, CV 92-1026-PHX-SMM (MS), that enjoins 

Plaintiff from filing any civil action in this or any other federal court without first 

obtaining leave of the court. See Doc. 4 in Maisano v. Clark, 14-CV-0001-TUC-RCC 

(D. Ariz. 2014).1

 

 

1

 In an April 8, 2014 Order, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed Plaintiff’s Notice of Appeal of the Injunction Order and Plaintiff’s accompanying documents, concluded that “the appeal is so insubstantial as to not warrant further 

review,” and did not permit the appeal to proceed. See Doc. 8 in 14-CV-0001-TUCRCC. 

Case 2:15-cv-00646-SMM--MHB Document 10 Filed 04/15/15 Page 1 of 5
- 2 - 

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 

II. Plaintiff’s Current Lawsuit

 On March 16, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the Eastern Division of the 

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. On March 23, 2015, 

Plaintiff submitted another complaint, which was filed in the same action and is identical 

to the original Complaint, except it was signed on a different day. On March 23, 2015, 

United States District Court Judge Ronnie L. White, apparently unaware at that time of 

the February 14, 2014 Injunction Order, issued a Memorandum and Order requiring 

Plaintiff to file an amended complaint on a court-approved form and to either pay the 

filing and administrative fees or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 

 On March 26, 2015, Plaintiff filed a third complaint, which was filed in the same 

action and is identical to the prior complaints, except it was signed on a different day. On 

April 6, 2015, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint that raises entirely different issues 

than those raised in the original Complaint. Plaintiff also filed a Motion to Proceed In 

Forma Pauperis. 

 On April 9, 2015, Judge White issued a Memorandum and Order concluding that 

the Complaint had “no legitimate connection” to the Eastern District of Missouri and that 

venue was proper in this District. Judge White noted that 28 U.S.C. § 1404 allows the 

Court to transfer the case to Arizona “in the interest of justice,” and found that “[t]he 

interests of justice dictate that plaintiff should not be permitted to attempt to circumvent 

the lawful injunction placed upon his litigation by the Arizona court by filing civil actions 

around the country.”2

 Judge White transferred the action to this Court and “provisionally

granted” the Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, “subject to modification 

by the transferee court.” 

 The Clerk of Court received the action on April 10, 2015, and assigned it to the 

undersigned. 

. . . . 

 

2

 Judge White presumably learned of the Injunction Order after he issued his March 23, 2015 Order. 

Case 2:15-cv-00646-SMM--MHB Document 10 Filed 04/15/15 Page 2 of 5
- 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 

III. Dismissal of Action

Pursuant to the Injunction Order, to obtain leave to file, Plaintiff must file a 

motion for leave to file captioned as an “Application Pursuant to Court Order Seeking 

Leave to File.” In the Application, Plaintiff must: 

(1) file an affidavit certifying that the claim or claims presented 

are new and have never been raised and disposed of on the 

merits by any federal court; 

(2) certify that, to the best of his knowledge, the claim or claims 

presented are not frivolous or taken in bad faith; and 

(3) affix to the Application a copy of February 20, 2014 

Injunction Order in 14-CV-0001-TUC-RCC, the January 29, 

2014 Order to Show Cause in 14-CV-0001-TUC-RCC, the 

1992 Restraining Order in Maisano v. Lewis, 92-CV-1026-

PHX-SMM (MS); and a list of all cases previously filed 

involving similar or related causes of action. 

“The failure to comply strictly with the terms of th[e Injunction] Order shall be 

sufficient ground to deny leave to file.” Id.

 Plaintiff did not file an Application Pursuant to Court Order Seeking Leave to 

File, the required affidavit or certification, the list of previously filed cases, or any of the 

required orders. Plaintiff, therefore, has failed to comply strictly with the court-mandated 

pre-filing requirements. Thus, this action will be dismissed without prejudice. 

Even if Plaintiff had complied with the court-mandated pre-filing requirements, 

the Court still would have dismissed the Complaint. Because Plaintiff has “three strikes,” 

the February 20, 2014 Injunction Order also requires that if Plaintiff attempts to file an in 

forma pauperis lawsuit, any Complaint he files or lodges “must clearly, coherently, and 

credibly allege that Plaintiff is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 

Plaintiff alleges in his original Complaint that “[y]ears ago prior to Corizon Given 

Contract, the Plaintiff(s) teeth were pulled and Plates Given, Those Plates have caused 

Damage which Disables the Plaintiff The Ability to eat, One of lifes basic Needs ‘Food.’” 

(Errors in original.) Plaintiff’s original Complaint, therefore, does not meet this 

requirement and does not make “a plausible allegation that the prisoner faced ‘imminent 

Case 2:15-cv-00646-SMM--MHB Document 10 Filed 04/15/15 Page 3 of 5
- 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 

danger of serious physical injury’ at the time of filing.” Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 

1047, 1055 (9th Cir. 2007).3

 Plaintiff has engaged in a bad faith attempt to circumvent the 2014 Injunction 

Order and avoid the requirement that he obtain permission to file his lawsuit. Plaintiff 

filed his lawsuit in the Eastern District of Missouri, claiming that Defendant Corizon’s 

headquarters is in St. Louis, Missouri. But Plaintiff knows this is false—he previously 

filed a multitude of lawsuits in Tennessee against Defendant Corizon because Defendant 

Corizon’s headquarters is there. Plaintiff presumably chose the Eastern District of 

Missouri because the judiciary there has not been subjected to his abusive litigation 

practices and therefore, was initially unaware of Plaintiff, his egregious misconduct, and 

the Injunction Order. 

IT IS ORDERED:

 (1) Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 6) is denied. 

 (2) This action is dismissed without prejudice and the Clerk of Court must 

enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 

 (3) The docket shall reflect that the Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a)(3) and Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3)(A), that any appeal of 

this decision would not be taken in good faith. 

. . . . 

. . . . 

. . . . 

. . . . 

. . . . 

 

3

 In Andrews, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the availability of the imminent danger exception “turns on the conditions a prisoner faced at the time the complaint was filed, not at some earlier or later time.” Id. at 1053. The Court of Appeals noted that, at the time of opinion, six other circuits addressed the issue and “all 

concluded, similarly, that district courts should determine whether there is an ‘imminent 

danger of serious physical injury’ on the basis of the conditions at the time the complaint was filed.” Id. Thus, it is the Plaintiff’s allegations in the original Complaint that are relevant, not the allegations in the Amended Complaint. 

Case 2:15-cv-00646-SMM--MHB Document 10 Filed 04/15/15 Page 4 of 5
- 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 

27 

28 

 (4) The Clerk of Court must accept no further documents for filing in this 

case number, other than those in furtherance of an appeal. 

 DATED this 14th day of April, 2015. 

Honorable Stephen M. McNamee

Senior United States District Judge

Case 2:15-cv-00646-SMM--MHB Document 10 Filed 04/15/15 Page 5 of 5