Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02724/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02724-0/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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

John Calvin Neuendorf, II, 

Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

St. Joseph’s Hospital, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV 12-2724-PHX-RCB (DKD) 

 O R D E R 

Plaintiff John Calvin Neuendorf, II, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison 

Complex-Lewis, has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 

I. Three Strikes Provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) 

 The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA), enacted on April 26, 1996, 

provides that a prisoner may not bring a civil action or appeal a civil judgment in forma 

pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 “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). Because § 1915(g) is a 

procedural rule that does not raise retroactivity concerns, cases that were dismissed 

Case 2:12-cv-02724-DJH--DKD Document 5 Filed 03/26/13 Page 1 of 3
- 2 - 

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 

before the effective date of § 1915(g), i.e., April 26, 1996, may be counted as qualifying 

dismissals or “strikes.” Tierney v. Kupers, 128 F.3d 1310, 1311 12 (9th Cir. 1997). A 

prisoner barred from proceeding in forma pauperis pursuant to § 1915(g) may proceed 

under the fee provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1911-14 applicable to everyone else. Adepegba 

v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996). 

More than three of the prior actions Plaintiff has filed in federal courts have been 

dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or as failing to state a claim: 

(1) Neuendorf v. Steinhillber, CV 10-724-PHX-RCB (DKD), May 5, 2010 

Order of Dismissal (Doc. 5) and June 21, 2010 Judgment (Doc. 7) 

dismissing the Complaint and action for failure to file an amended 

complaint; 

(2) Neuendorf v. John C. Lincoln Medical, CV 10-752-PHX-RCB (DKD), 

August 3, 2012 Order of Dismissal (Doc. 6) and Judgment (Doc. 8), 

dismissing the Complaint and action for failure to state a claim; and 

(3) Neuendorf v. Arizona, CV 10-2238-PHX-RCB (DKD), January 20, 2011 

Order of Dismissal (Doc. 6) and Judgment (Doc. 8), dismiss the Complaint 

and action for failure to state a clam. 

The Court has reviewed the Order of Dismissal in each of these cases and finds 

that the cases qualify as “strikes” under the 3-strikes provision of § 1915(g) because in 

each case, the Complaint was dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff may not bring a civil action without complete pre-payment of the 

$350.00 filing fee unless he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(g). 

II. Failure to Allege Imminent Danger of Serious Physical Injury 

 In this case, Plaintiff claims that he was attacked by another inmate, he was 

prescribed the wrong medication for a period of 9 months, and he is denied access to the 

courts. Plaintiff’s claims of physical harm all relate to past events. Claims concerning an 

“imminent danger of serious physical injury” cannot be triggered solely by complaints of 

past abuse. See Ashley v. Dilworth, 147 F.3d 715, 717 (8th Cir. 1998); Banos v. O=Guin, 

144 F.3d 883, 884 (5th Cir. 1998); see also Luedtke v. Bertrand, 32 F. Supp. 2d 1074, 

Case 2:12-cv-02724-DJH--DKD Document 5 Filed 03/26/13 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

1077 (E.D. Wis. 1999). See also Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1053, 1055 (“[T]he availability of 

the [imminent danger] exception turns on the conditions a prisoner faced at the time the 

complaint was filed, not some earlier or later time . . . . [T]he exception applies if the 

complaint makes a plausible allegation that the prisoner faced ‘imminent danger of 

serious physical injury’ at the time of filing.”). Plaintiff does not make a credible or 

coherent allegation that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury, as required 

by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) to bring this action without complete pre-payment of the $350.00 

filing fee. Accordingly, the Complaint and this action will be dismissed without 

prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) for failure to pre-pay the $350.00 filing fee. If 

Plaintiff wishes to reassert these claims in the future, he must pre-pay the entire $350.00 

filing fee at the time of filing. 

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 pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(g), without prejudice to Plaintiff filing a complaint in a new case 

accompanied by the full $350.00 filing fee. The Clerk of Court must enter judgment and 

close this case. 

 DATED this 26th day of March, 2013. 

Case 2:12-cv-02724-DJH--DKD Document 5 Filed 03/26/13 Page 3 of 3