Grandinetti v. Nale

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII FRANCIS GRANDINETTI, ) CIV. NO. 20-00344 JAO-RT #A0185087, ) ) Plaintiff, ) DISMISSAL ORDER ) vs. ) ) DR. BURO NALE, M.D., et al., ) ) Defendants. ) _____________________________ ) DISMISSAL ORDER In pro se prisoner Francis Grandinetti’s (“Grandinetti”) “Federal Complaint,” ECF No. 1, he explains that Dr. Buro Nale, M.D. was late to Grandinetti’s July 31, 2020 physical examination, refused to videorecord the examination, disagreed with Grandinetti’s personal diagnoses of his ailments, and denied Grandinetti’s requests for certain medical items, such as a new hernia belt, wheelchair, injury and exemption from work memoranda, and a soft or vegetarian diet. See id. Grandinetti has accrued three strikes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g),1 and may not proceed without prepayment of the filing fee unless his pleadings show that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time that he brought this action. See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053, 1055 (9th Cir. 2007). Nothing within the Complaint or its exhibits indicate that Grandinetti is or was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed this action or that there is a continuing practice that injured him in the past that poses an “ongoing danger.” Id. at 1056. Moreover, Grandinetti’s claims regarding a physical examination that he received at the Saguaro Correctional Center in Arizona are properly raised in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, where venue for these claims lie. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

The Court construes Grandinetti’s filing of this action without paying the civil filing fee as an informal request to proceed in forma pauperis. So construed, the request is DENIED and this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. This does not prevent Grandinetti from raising his claims in a new action in the District of Arizona with concurrent payment of the civil filing fee. The Clerk is

1 See, e.g., Grandinetti v. FTC Seg. Unit Staff, 426 F. App’x 576 (9th Cir. 2011); Grandinetti v. Abercrombie, Civ. No. 15-00007 LEK-RLP (D. Haw. Jan. 14, 2015); Grandinetti v. Shimoda, Civ. No. 05-00442 JMS-BMK (D. Haw. Aug. 18, 2005); Grandinetti v. Stampfle, Civ. No. 05- 00692 HG-LEK (D. Haw. Nov. 14, 2005).

DIRECTED to terminate this case. The Court will take no action on documents filed herein beyond processing a notice of appeal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, August 17, 2020. gan, - Uf ay a bon OO Jili A. Otake ar “ & United States District Judge Ty, WaT; □□ Grandinetti v. Nale, et al., Civ. No. 20-00344 JAO-RT; Dismissal Order