Grandinetti v. Barajas
Grandinetti v. Barajas
Trial Court Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
FRANCIS GRANDINETTI, ) CIV. NO. 20-00347 LEK-RT #A0185087, ) ) Plaintiff, ) DISMISSAL ORDER ) vs. ) ) ERICA BARAJAS, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) _____________________________ ) Pro se prisoner Francis Grandinetti was finally transferred from Arizona back to Hawaii, on or about August 4, 2020, after waiting nearly twenty-five years. Grandinetti complains, however, that Defendants “should have transferred Plaintiff back to DPS Honolulu during 2000 to 2020; not wait until August 4, 2020 to retransfer.” Compl, ECF No. 1. He also claims that, although he saw a physician in Arizona five days before the transfer, who determined that Grandinetti was healthy enough to transfer, this physician did not refer him to an opthalmologist before the transfer due to the Covid-19 pandemic, and disagreed with several of Grandinetti’s self-diagnoses of injuries and ailments. Overall, Grandinetti appears optimistic and upbeat about the transfer to Hawaii and the Court cannot plausibly infer that he states a colorable claim against any named Defendant. Moreover, Grandinetti has accrued three strikes pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g),1 and he 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 and its attachments, however,
suggests that Grandinetti was subject to imminent danger of serious physical injury before, during, or after this transfer, or when he submitted this Complaint. Nor does he allege a continuing practice that injured him in the past and poses an
“ongoing danger” based on his transfer to Hawaii.
Id. at 1056. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Grandinetti’s implied request to proceed in forma pauperis and DISMISSES the action without prejudice to raising these claims in a new action with concurrent payment of the civil filing fee. The Clerk is
DIRECTED to terminate this case. IT IS SO ORDERED.
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. 2015); Grandinetti v. Shimoda, Civ. No. 05-00442 JMS-BMK (D. Haw. 2005); Grandinetti v. Stampfle, Civ. No. 05- 00692 HG-LK (D. Haw. 2005). DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, August 17, 2020.
“ pTes SIS TR, a t Sy . . > Ss. S . % /s/ Leslie E. Kobayashi 3 a 2 om rig Leslie E. Kobayashi im z United States District Judge ane le ae
Grandinetti v.Barajas, et al., No. 1:20-cv-00347 LEK-RT; 3 Stks 20 (trsf to HD
Reference
- Status
- Unknown