Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01315/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01315-0/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

Laura L. Medley, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

CO II Rubio, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-1315-PHX-GMS (DKD)

ORDER 

On July 1, 2011, Plaintiff Laura L. Medley, who is confined in the Arizona State

Prison Complex-Perryville in Goodyear, Arizona, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1) and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

(Doc. 2).

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

Case 2:11-cv-01315-GMS--DKD Document 5 Filed 07/06/11 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 identified these strikes in a November 5, 2010 Order to Show Cause in

Medley v. Arizona, 10-CV-1971-PHX-MHM (DKD). In the Order to Show Cause, the Court

gave Plaintiff 30 days to show cause why the dismissals of her prior lawsuits should not

prevent her from proceeding in forma pauperis. Plaintiff did not respond to the Order to

Show Cause.

2

Moreover, her allegation that she was told to “drop the lawsuit or you’re dead” is

insufficient to state a claim. See Gaut v. Sunn, 810 F.2d 923, 925 (9th Cir. 1987)

- 2 -

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 lawsuits qualify as “strikes” under § 1915(g):

(1) Medley v. Maricopa County Superior Court, 01-CV-2130-PHXMHM (DKD) (Nov. 21, 2001 Order dismissing for failure to

state a claim);

(2) Medley v. Arpaio, 08-CV-101-PHX-MHM (DKD) (Feb. 21,

2008 Order dismissing for failure to state a claim); and

(3) Medley v. Overton, 08-CV-590-PHX-MHM (DKD) (May 8,

2008 Order dismissing for failure to state a claim).1

Therefore, Plaintiff may not bring a civil action without complete prepayment of the $350.00

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

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 she 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). 

Plaintiff alleges that she has received death threats, but does not allege that she is in

imminent danger of serious physical injury, nor do her allegations support such a finding.2

Case 2:11-cv-01315-GMS--DKD Document 5 Filed 07/06/11 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

(defendants’ threats of bodily harm to convince plaintiff not to pursue legal redress were

insufficient to state a claim under § 1983; “it trivializes the eighth amendment to believe a

threat constitutes a constitutional wrong”).

- 3 -

Thus, the Court will deny the 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, she must prepay the entire $350.00 filing fee when she

files her action.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2) is denied.

(2) 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, she must prepay the entire $350.00 filing fee when she files his action.

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

DATED this 6th day of July, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-01315-GMS--DKD Document 5 Filed 07/06/11 Page 3 of 3