Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01907/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01907-3/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS JOHN HEILMAN,

Plaintiff, No. 2:11-cv-1907 EFB P1

vs.

G.A. THUMSER, et al., 

ORDER AND

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel and in forma pauperis in an action

brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants Coyle, Duncan, Tapiz, Van Heerde, and Cate

(“defendants”) move to revoke plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(g) and to dismiss this action. Dckt. No. 37. For the following reasons, the motion must

be denied.

Section 1915(g) provides that:

In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal . . . 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

1

 Defendants failed to respond to the court’s order filed on November 26, 2012, Dckt. No.

33, directing that they complete and return the form indicating either their consent to jurisdiction

of the magistrate judge or request for reassignment to a district judge. Accordingly, the clerk

will be directed to randomly assign this case to a district judge.

1

Case 2:11-cv-01907-MCE-EFB Document 46 Filed 07/09/13 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

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.

Pursuant to section 1915(g) a prisoner with three “strikes,” meaning prior cases or appeals,

brought while the plaintiff was a prisoner that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for

failure to state a claim, cannot proceed in forma pauperis. Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1116

n.1 (9th Cir. 2005).

Defendants bear the initial burden of producing documentary evidence that allows the

court to conclude that the plaintiff has suffered three strikes. Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1120

(because docket records will not always reflect the basis for the dismissal, defendants “must

produce court records or other documentation that will allow the district court to determine that a

prior case was dismissed because it was ‘frivolous, malicious or failed to state a claim.’”). If

defendants meet this burden, the burden then shifts to the prisoner plaintiff, who must either

explain why a prior dismissal should not count as a strike or show that he satisfies the “imminent

danger of serious physical injury” exception to § 1915(g). See id. 

In this case, defendants point to three orders of dismissal that they contend count as

strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). One of the three orders is from Heilman v. Cate, No. 2:10-cv0828, MCE KJM (E.D. Cal.) (“Cate”). As plaintiff points out in his opposition, that action was

not “brought” by him “in a court of the United States.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (indicating that

a strike may only result from an action that the plaintiff “brought . . . in a court of the United

States”). Rather, plaintiff commenced that action in state court and the defendants then removed

it to federal court and paid the filing fee. See Cate, No. 2:10-cv-0828, MCE KJM, Dckt. No. 2;

see also Dckt. No. 38, Ex. C. In their motion, defendants do not offer any argument as to why a

case that was removed to federal court by defendants should qualify as a strike for purposes of 

§ 1915(g). See Dckt. No. 37 at 5 (simply asserting that Cate is “within the statute” and counts as

a strike because it was dismissed for failure to state a claim). 

////

2

Case 2:11-cv-01907-MCE-EFB Document 46 Filed 07/09/13 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

In their reply, defendants assert that whether an action was removed from state court has

no “bearing on whether a dismissal counts as a strike,” stressing that the critical inquiry is the

reason for dismissal. Dckt. No. 42 at 2. But the reason for dismissal is only one of the inquiries

in determining whether a dismissal counts as a strike. According to the plain language of 

§ 1915(g), a strike may only result from an action that the plaintiff “brought . . . in a court of the

United States.” Defendants fail to demonstrate that the Cate action satisfies this requirement of 

§ 1915(g). Accordingly, the court cannot find that the order of dismissal in Cate qualifies as a

strike. See Fuller v. Yates, No. 1:08-cv-0465, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76974, at *4 (E.D. Cal.

July 14, 2011) (“the court finds no authority in the Ninth Circuit that a case filed by a

prisoner-plaintiff . . . in state court and removed to federal court by the defendants, is an action

‘brought’ by a prisoner in a court of the United States, within the meaning of § 1915(g)”); Davis

v. Kelso, No. 1:10-cv-1184 LJO GBC, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101575, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 8,

2011) (case removed to federal court by defendants does not count as a strike); see also Carrea

v. California, No. EDCV 07-1148 CAS (MAN), 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107902, at *23-24 (C.D.

Cal. Aug. 25, 2010) (concluding that § 1915(g) had no application in a case removed to federal

court by defendants, because it was their “removal of this case, not any action by plaintiff, [that]

caused the action to be filed in federal court”). 

Because defendants have failed to demonstrate that the one of the three orders they rely

on counts as a strike, they have not demonstrated that plaintiff has suffered three strikes pursuant

to § 1915(g). The court need not decide whether the remaining two orders produced by

defendants qualify as strikes. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall randomly

assign a United States District Judge to this action.

////

////

////

3

Case 2:11-cv-01907-MCE-EFB Document 46 Filed 07/09/13 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

Further, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendants’ January 25, 2013 motion to

revoke plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status and to dismiss this action (Dckt. No. 37) be denied. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v.

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: July 9, 2013.

4

Case 2:11-cv-01907-MCE-EFB Document 46 Filed 07/09/13 Page 4 of 4