Jones v. Sammartino

United States District Court for the Southern District of California

Jones v. Sammartino

Trial Court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Case No.: 3:24-cv-01597-JO-BLM WAYNE ELIJAH JONES, 12 CDCR #BU-7712, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 13 PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS Plaintiff, AND DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION 14 vs. FOR FAILURE TO PAY FILING 15 FEES REQUIRED BY JANIS L. SAMMARTINO, et al.,

28 U.S.C. § 1914

(a) 16 Defendants. 17 [Dkt. 2] 18 19 Plaintiff Wayne Elijah Jones is a prisoner at Richard J. Donovan Correctional 20 Facility (“RJD”) in San Diego, California. Proceeding pro se, he filed a civil rights 21 complaint pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983

and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). 22 Dkts. 1, 2. A prisoner with three or more “strikes,” i.e., prior civil cases or appeals 23 dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a claim, “cannot proceed IFP” 24 absent a plausible allegation of “imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time of 25 filing. Andrews. v. King,

398 F.3d 1113

, 1116 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting 28 U.S.C. 26 § 1915(g)); see also Andrews v. Cervantes,

493 F.3d 1047, 1055

(9th Cir. 2007). Jones’s 27 many strikes disqualify him from proceeding IFP unless he plausibly alleges that he faces 1 |/imminent danger. See Dkt. 1 at 2, 6; see also Jones v. CDCR Work Change Officer, 2024 2 || WL 4195315, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2024) (taking judicial notice of Jones’s prior strikes 3 || disqualifying him from proceeding IFP). Here, in his September 5, 2024 complaint, Jones 4 ||alleges emotional distress due to privacy rights violations, Dkt. 1 at 2, 4, and because 5 || federal judges fail to show “respect for [his] claims and cases.” /d. at 2, 7. Because these 6 || allegations of emotional distress do not suffice to show he faces an imminent danger of 7 Serious physical harm, he may not proceed IFP. See Cervantes,

493 F.3d at 1053

; Ray v. 8 || Lara,

31 F.4th 692, 701

(9th Cir. 2022). 9 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Jones’s Motion to proceed IFP, Dkt. 2, and 10 || DISMISSES this civil action for failure to pay the $405 civil filing and administrative fee 11 |/required by

28 U.S.C. § 1914

(a). The Court also certifies that an IFP appeal would not be 12 taken in good faith pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915

(a)(3). The Court further DIRECTS the 13 || Clerk of the Court to close the case. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. Qe 15 || Dated: December 12, 2024 16 Honorable J insook Ohta United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Reference

Status
Unknown