Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20191218_0017161.ECA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-01-27 14:46:51
Document Index: 516388264

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915']

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (ECF NO. 13) TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE
Plaintiff Allen Hammler is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On November 2, 2019, the undersigned issued an order adopting the October 2, 2019 findings and recommendations in full and denying Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (ECF No. 12.) The undersigned ordered Plaintiff to pay the $400.00 filing fee in full within twenty-one days from the date of service of the order. (Id.)
On November 22, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).
Here, Plaintiff disputes the Court's determination that Hammler v. Director of CDCR, No. 1:17-cv-00097-NJV (N.D. Cal.) (“CDCR”) is appropriately counted as a strike against Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Specifically, Plaintiff asserts that this Court should reconsider its determination that CDCR is properly counted as a strike against Plaintiff because the District Judge in Hammler v. State of California, No. 1:19-cv-00784-DAD-BAM (E.D. Cal.) determined that CDCR does not count as a strike against Plaintiff.
However, it is well settled that, in determining whether a prior dismissal qualifies as a strike pursuant to § 1915(g), a reviewing court must “careful[ly] evaluat[e] … the order dismissing an action, and other relevant information” and “make an independent assessment” of whether the prior action had been dismissed because the action was “frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim.” Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005); see also Knapp v. Hogan, 738 F.3d 1106, 1109-10 (9th Cir. 2013). Here, the undersigned has carefully evaluated the April 27, 2017 order dismissing CDCR and the March 2, 2017 order screening Plaintiff's complaint in CDCR. Further, after conducting that review, the undersigned has independently determined that the prior dismissal in CDCR qualifies as a strike pursuant to § 1915(g) because the action was dismissed after Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint following a screening order dismissing his original complaint for failure to state a claim and failure to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit. See Harris v. Mangum, 863 F.3d 1133, 1143 (9th Cir. 2017) (“Accordingly, we hold that when (1) a district court dismisses a complaint on the ground that it fails to state a claim, (2) the court grants leave to amend, and (3) the plaintiff then fails to file an amended complaint, the dismissal counts as a strike under § 1915(g).”); El-Shaddai v. Zamora, 833 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2016) (stating that a dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies counts as a strike under § 1915(g) if the failure to exhaust is apparent from the face of the complaint).
While Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration was pending, the time allotted for Plaintiff to pay the $400.00 filing fee in full expired. Therefore, the Court finds that the interest of justice requires that Plaintiff be granted twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of this ...