Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-03101/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-03101-4/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

ERNEST MILLER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-08-3101 GGH P

vs.

T. PEREZ, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

___________________________/

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. This action, originally filed on December 8, 2008, was transferred in from the Northern

District on December 22, 2008. Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned on

December 29, 2008, which consent was docketed on January 5, 2009. See docket # 7. By Order,

filed on January 5, 2009, plaintiff was directed to submit the filing fee or an appropriate affidavit

in support of his request to proceed in forma pauperis. By Order, filed on April 8, 2009, plaintiff

was granted in forma pauperis status and his claims were dismissed with leave to amend, which

he did. On September 10, 2009, plaintiff’s amended complaint was dismissed and plaintiff was

granted one further opportunity to amend, after which plaintiff filed a second amended complaint

on October 15, 2009. On November 2, 2009, plaintiff filed a motion asserting that his in forma

pauperis status should not be revoked wherein he concedes that he has had three or more actions

Case 2:08-cv-03101-GGH Document 19 Filed 02/22/10 Page 1 of 7
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

2

dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim. To that notice, plaintiff appends an order in

another case, CIV-S-08-0234 OWW SMS, on which he proceeded within the Fresno Division of

the Eastern District of California. The order he appends concerns plaintiff’s motion for a

preliminary injunction in that case, wherein he sought to be housed on single cell status due to

safety concerns. The motion was denied for lack of jurisdiction because plaintiff’s allegations

within that complaint concerned prison officials at California State Prison-Corcoran, but at the

time of filing the motion, plaintiff was housed at High Desert State Prison. The court, however,

did direct service of a courtesy copy of the order in light of plaintiff’s concerns about his safety

upon the warden at High Desert State Prison, placing the warden on notice and requesting that

plaintiff’s allegations that he was in danger if not housed in a single cell be looked into. 

Ultimately, plaintiff’s action, CIV-S-08-0234 OWW SMS, was dismissed for failure to exhaust

administrative remedies and judgment entered thereon on September 8, 2009. Plaintiff’s

subsequent appeal was dismissed on December 10, 2009, for failure to perfect the appeal.

In the original complaint in the instant action plaintiff made allegations that did

not implicate his constitutional rights, i.e., claims regarding “a 180-day loss of telephone

privileges, canteen shopping, access to television and radio, or receipt from friends or family of

vendor packages.” See Order, filed on April 8, 2009, p. 3. Because, however, plaintiff had

raised “the specter of racial discrimination as the basis for his loss of such amenities,” plaintiff

was granted leave to amend to frame an equal protection claim. Id., at 3-4. 

Plaintiff’s amended complaint was dismissed because, inter alia, he continued to

fail to articulate a colorable claim of racial discrimination. The court also found that his claims

related to a prior case, CIV-S-06-0947 JAM GGH P, with regard to the First Amendment were

barred under the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. See Order, filed on September

15, 2009. Plaintiff was nevertheless granted one further opportunity to amend to frame a viable

First Amendment claim and a claim of racial discrimination. Id. 

\\\\\

Case 2:08-cv-03101-GGH Document 19 Filed 02/22/10 Page 2 of 7
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

 See Orders, filed on April 8, 2009 (docket # 11) and on September 10, 2009 (docket # 1

15).

 Judicial notice may be taken of court records. Valerio v. Boise Cascade Corp., 80 2

F.R.D. 626, 635 n.1 (N.D. Cal. 1978), aff’d, 645 F.2d 699 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1126

(1981). 

3

In his second amended complaint, plaintiff alleges in a very generic fashion that

defendants are depriving him of his First Amendment right to send and receive mail due to his

disciplinary confinement. He continues to reference issues previously litigated in CIV-06-0947. 

The court has previously explained the applicable standards for making colorable claims, but 1

plaintiff once again fails to set forth colorable allegations. See Second Amended Complaint,

filed on October 15, 2009. 

However, plaintiff has also filed a motion for single cell status, seeking single cell

status and a transfer to another prison “due to imminent danger of physical injury” under 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g). Motion for Preliminary Injunction, filed on November 20, 2009. This appears

to be an effort at a preemptive strike based on plaintiff’s correct concession that he has been

found to be a three-strikes litigant. See, e.g., Miller v. McGrath, et al., CIV-S-08-0070 HWG

KSC.

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) permits any court of the

United States to authorize the commencement and prosecution of any suit without prepayment of

fees by a person who submits an affidavit indicating that the person is unable to pay such fees;

however, 

[i]n 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). The court takes judicial notice of the national pro se “three strikes” 2

Case 2:08-cv-03101-GGH Document 19 Filed 02/22/10 Page 3 of 7
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

 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. 3

 Untimely appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 4

 Dismissal for failure to state a claim summarily affirmed on appeal to the Ninth Circuit.

5

 Dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim, and affirmed on appeal for the 6

reasons set forth by the magistrate judge, adopted by the district judge.

 Pursuant to Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 275-76, 108 S. Ct. 2379, 2385 (1988) (pro 7

se prisoner filing is dated from the date prisoner delivers it to prison authorities). Douglas v.

Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1109 (9 Cir. 2009) (holding that “the Houston mailbox rule applies to § th

1983 complaints filed by pro se prisoners”).

4

database, and the cases therein cited, which a Ninth Circuit committee has directed this court to

access for PLRA three-strikes screening purposes, wherein plaintiff, Ernest Miller, CDCR #3

T97203, is identified as a litigant with no less than four strikes based on the following filings

dismissed for failure to state a claim: 1) Miller v. High Desert Prison, et al., CIV-S-06-1437 GEB

CMK PC, dismissed on July 24, 2007 ; 2) Miller v. Access Securepak, CIV-S-07-1538 PC, 4

dismissed on December 19, 2007 ; 3) Miller v. King Harris Publications Magazine, CIV-S-07- 5

1152 LJO GSA, dismissed on March 12, 2008 ; 4) Miller v. California State Prison Corcoran, et 6

al., CIV-S-06-1437 OWW SMS, dismissed on May 9, 2008. Each of these cases, as verified by

this court’s review of the electronic docket of each case, was dismissed well prior to the filing of

this action, on December 8, 2008, or even, by application of the mailbox rule, on November 25, 7

2008.

The court finds that plaintiff is precluded from proceeding in forma pauperis in

this action unless plaintiff is “under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. §

1915(g). To meet the exception, plaintiff must have alleged facts that demonstrate that he was

“under imminent danger” at the time of filing the complaint. Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d

1047, 1053 (9 Cir. 2007) (“it is the circumstances at the time of the filing of the complaint that th

matters for purposes of the ‘imminent danger’ under § 1915(g))”; see also, Abdul-Akbar v.

McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307, 312-14 (3 Cir. 2001); Medberry v. Butler, 185 F.3d 1189, 1192-93 rd

Case 2:08-cv-03101-GGH Document 19 Filed 02/22/10 Page 4 of 7
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

(11 Cir. 1999); Ashley v. Dilworth, 147 F.3d 715, 717 (8th Cir.1998); Banos v. O'Guin, 144 th

F.3d 883, 884 (5th Cir.1998). Plaintiff has altogether failed to do so not only in his original

complaint which is the basis on which an evaluation must be made as to whether plaintiff alleged

facts demonstrating that he was “under imminent danger of serious physical injury,” but even in

any subsequent incarnation of his complaint, as set forth above. 

Nor can plaintiff’s recent filing of a putative motion for preliminary injunction

have the retroactive effect he seeks. “The proper legal standard for preliminary injunctive relief

requires a party to demonstrate ‘that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to

suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his

favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.’” Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109,

1127 (9 Cir. 2009), quoting Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. th

365, 374 (2008).

In cases brought by prisoners involving conditions of confinement, any

preliminary injunction “must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the

harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to

correct the harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). In his motion, the sole basis for his seeking a single

cell and a transfer is the broad claim that “prisoners and prison guards” continuously make “fatal

threats” as they walk by his cell, which he appears to be seeking to link to this case by seeking to

claim that the unnamed guards and prisoners are acting in retaliation for his having filed the

instant lawsuit on which he now seeks to proceed on claims that his First Amendment rights have

been violated by how his mail is sent and received while he is confined to a disciplinary unit. 

See Motion for Preliminary Injunction, p. 1. In addition to his failure to identify when and by

whom he is allegedly being threatened, plaintiff fails to even provide an affidavit in support of

his defective motion. The motion appears on its face to be a somewhat desperate, if misguided,

effort to keep the court from reconsidering, sua sponte, the issue of whether plaintiff should be

allowed to continue to proceed in this case in forma pauperis. In addition, the motion fails

Case 2:08-cv-03101-GGH Document 19 Filed 02/22/10 Page 5 of 7
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

6

because there is not even a viable underlying complaint upon which the court is able to assess the

merits of this action. 

Because plaintiff has failed after three attempts to frame colorable allegations, the

court will now dismiss this case with prejudice for plaintiff’s repeated failure to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted. “Liberality in granting a plaintiff leave to amend ‘is subject to

the qualification that the amendment not cause undue prejudice to the defendant, is not sought in

bad faith, and is not futile.’” Thornton v. McClatchy Newspapers, Inc., 261 F.3d 789, 799 (9th

Cir. 2001), quoting Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 757 (9th Cir.1999). “Under Ninth Circuit

case law, district courts are only required to grant leave to amend if a complaint can possibly be

saved. Courts are not required to grant leave to amend if a complaint lacks merit entirely.” 

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1124, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[A] district court retains its

discretion over the terms of a dismissal for failure to state a claim, including whether to make the

dismissal with or without leave to amend.”) 

Moreover, in light of plaintiff’s history as a three strikes litigant, the court now

finds that his in forma pauperis status must be revoked because he is barred from proceeding in

forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) . The court has no record of any payment having been

made against the filing fee so that, if this matter were proceeding, the full amount of the filing fee

of $350.00 would be due immediately. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status is hereby revoked and he is barred from

proceeding in forma pauperis in this action under the three strikes provision of 28 U.S.C. §

1915(g), and the Order, filed on April 9, 2009 (docket # 11), is vacated to the extent it permitted

plaintiff to pay the civil filing fee pursuant to the installment payment provisions set forth in 28

U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) and (2);

2. Plaintiff’s defective motion for preliminary injunctive relief, filed on November

20, 2009 (docket # 18), is denied; and

Case 2:08-cv-03101-GGH Document 19 Filed 02/22/10 Page 6 of 7
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

7

3. This case is dismissed with prejudice for plaintiff’s repeated failure to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted.

DATED: February 22, 2010 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

mill3101.3st

Case 2:08-cv-03101-GGH Document 19 Filed 02/22/10 Page 7 of 7