Opinion ID: 614205
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Silva's Complaint

Text: On September 4, 2007, Silva filed a pro se civil rights complaint against Washington Assistant Attorney General Sara Olson, referred to on appeal as Sara Di Vittorio (Di Vittorio), and three Washington Department of Corrections (WDOC) and Corrections Corporation of America (Corrections Corporation) officials who work at the Florence Correctional Center (FCC), where Silva had previously been incarcerated. In his complaint, Silva sought relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of his First and Fourteenth Amendment right of access to the courts. He also alleged supplemental state law claims for conversion and fraud. Along with his complaint, Silva moved to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The district court initially denied Silva's motion to proceed IFP, concluding that the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act's three-strikes provision barred his request to proceed IFP. See id. § 1915(g). [1] The PLRA precludes a prisoner from proceeding IFP if, on three or more prior occasions, he filed an action or appeal that was dismissed because it was frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Id. Citing Silva v. Washington, No. 2:98-cv-00659-WLD (W.D.Wash. Sept. 22, 1998); Silva v. Clarke, No. CV-05-414-MWL, 2006 WL 3246499 (E.D.Wash. Nov. 8, 2006); Silva v. Bush, No. C06-984-JLR (W.D.Wash. Apr. 16, 2007); and Silva v. Goddard, No. CV-06-02289-JAT (D.Ariz. Mar. 27, 2007), the district court concluded that at least three of the prior actions Silva had filed in federal court had been dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or because they failed to state a claim. The district court further found that because Silva was not under imminent danger of serious physical injury, the sole statutory exception to the three-strikes rule did not apply. See § 1915(g). Accordingly, the district court dismissed Silva's complaint without prejudice for failure to prepay the filing fee. Silva moved to reconsider, arguing that two of the four cases the district court counted as strikes should not count against him because, at the time he filed his complaint, his appeals were still pending before this court. The district court agreed and granted Silva's motion to reconsider, vacated its earlier dismissal, and allowed Silva to proceed IFP. As obligated under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the district court then screened Silva's complaint to determine whether he had a cognizable claim for relief. Without reaching the merits of Silva's claims, the district court dismissed Silva's complaint without prejudice because he had not used the district court's approved form for pro se prisoner complaints. The district court granted Silva leave to file a first amended complaint, warning him that if he did not follow the pleading requirements, the Court may strike the amended complaint and dismiss this action without further notice to Plaintiff.