Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00476/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00476-3/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN HARDNEY, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0476 RRB KJM P

vs.

ANTHONY LAMARQUE, et al., 

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prison inmate proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants have filed a second motion to dismiss, alleging that plaintiff has

“struck out” within the meaning of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g).

I. Three Strikes And The PLRA

The “three strikes” provision of the PLRA empowers a court to deny in forma

pauperis status to a litigant who does not qualify for the “imminent danger” exception of the act

and who has had three actions “dismissed on the grounds that [they are] frivolous, malicious, or

fail[] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). An action meets

this standard if it is “based on an indisputably meritless legal theory” or its “factual contentions

are clearly baseless. Examples of the former class are claims against which it is clear that the

Case 2:04-cv-00476-JAM -KJM Document 28 Filed 08/02/07 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

2

defendants are immune from suit and claims of infringement of a legal interest which clearly

does not exist.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989) (internal citation omitted). 

When defendants challenge a plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status, they bear the

initial burden of production:

[T]he defendants must produce documentary evidence that allows

the district court to conclude that the plaintiff has filed at least

three prior actions that were dismissed because they were

“frivolous, malicious, or fail[ed] to state a claim.” . . . [T]he

defendants may not simply rest on the fact of dismissal. Rather,

the defendants must produce court records or other documentation

that will allow the district court to determine because it was

“frivolous, malicious or fail[ed] to state a claim.”

Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1120 (9th Cir. 2005). 

Once defendants have met this initial burden, it becomes the prisoner’s burden to

explain why a prior dismissal should not count as a strike. It is his “ultimate burden” to persuade

the court that § 1915(g) does not apply. Id; see also Evans v. Illinois Department of Corrections,

150 F.3d 810, 812 (7th Cir. 1998). 

II. Plaintiff’s Litigation History

Defendants have submitted records from three cases plaintiff has pursued in

federal court, arguing that all three are strikes. The court declines to determine whether two of

the cases qualify as strikes under the PLRA, because one does not meet the definition. 

In Hardney v. Davis, Civ. Case No. F-94-5859 OWW DLB P (E.D. Cal.), plaintiff

challenged an alleged failure to provide him with appropriate psychiatric treatment and a transfer

to a facility without adequate treatment options for his mental illness. Findings and

Recommendations filed Aug. 29, 1997, at 2 (attached to defendants’ moving papers). The

defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, supported by portions of plaintiff’s medical

files. The court ultimately found that the defendants were entitled to summary judgment because

there was no “genuine issue for trial,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e), as to the medical care claim and

because the allegations concerning the transfer did not add up to a constitutional claim. Id. at 

Case 2:04-cv-00476-JAM -KJM Document 28 Filed 08/02/07 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

3

11-12. These findings and recommendations were upheld by the district court and ultimately, by

the Ninth Circuit. 

This action does not qualify as a strike: the action was not resolved against

plaintiff until the summary judgment stage, after the resolution of a dispute about the merits and

viability of the action. This court declines to find that a case ultimately resolved on summary

judgment is “undisputedly” without merit. Because this case is not a strike, defendants have not

met their burden of showing that plaintiff has suffered three strikes. 

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendants’ motion to dismiss be denied,

and that defendants file their answer within twenty days of any adoption of these findings and

recommendations. 

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 twenty

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.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: August 2, 2007. 

2

hard0476.57

Case 2:04-cv-00476-JAM -KJM Document 28 Filed 08/02/07 Page 3 of 3