Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00338/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00338-0/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

27

28

1

This matter was originally assigned to United States District Court Judge Neil V.

Wake, who recused himself (Doc. #3). The case was randomly reassigned to the

undersigned.

WO MDR

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Richard Charles Eline, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Neil V. Wake,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-338-PHX-MHM (MEA)

ORDER

On February 17, 2010, Plaintiff Richard Charles Eline, who is confined in the

Corrections Corporation of America’s Saguaro Correctional Center in Eloy, Arizona, filed

a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. #1).1

 Plaintiff has not

paid the $350.00 civil action filing fee or filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.

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). 

Case 2:10-cv-00338-MHM--MEA Document 4 Filed 03/18/10 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

- 2 -

A. Strikes

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

(1) Eline v. Kaneshiro, 97-CV-937–ACK-FIY (D. Haw. Oct. 9,

1997 judgment) (frivolous and failure to state a claim);

(2) Eline v. China Normalization Initiative, 97-CV-893–DAE-FIY

(D. Haw. Aug. 8, 1997 judgment) (failure to state a claim); and

(3) Eline v. Patterson Broadcasting, 97-CV-851-DAE-FIY (D. Haw.

Aug. 8, 1997 judgment) (failure to state a claim).

See also Eline v. Tanaka, 08-CV-244-SOM-BMK (D. Haw. May 30, 2008 Order) (listing

Plaintiff’s three strikes, dismissing case pursuant to § 1915(g), and noting that “Plaintiff has

filed seventy-three other civil actions since 1993 in the federal district and appellate courts,

all of which were dismissed for various reasons, including failure to state a claim, failure to

prosecute, frivolousness, and failure to pay”); Eline v. Sedillo, 01-CV-262-PHX-RCB (MS)

(Jan. 7, 2002 Order) (listing Plaintiff’s three strikes and dismissing case pursuant to

§ 1915(g)).

B. Failure to Allege Imminent Danger of Serious Physical Injury.

If a plaintiff has three or more strikes, he 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). Plaintiff brought this lawsuit without prepaying the

filing fee. Plaintiff does not allege that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury

and his accusations would not support such an allegation. 

Case 2:10-cv-00338-MHM--MEA Document 4 Filed 03/18/10 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

- 3 -

Thus, the Court 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 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.

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

DATED this 15th day of March, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00338-MHM--MEA Document 4 Filed 03/18/10 Page 3 of 3