Opinion
3:22-cv-00269-JMK
01-22-2024
PAUL R. JAMES, JR., Plaintiff, v. OFFICIALS OF BETHEL JAIL, et al., Defendants.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL & NOTICE OF STRIKE
JOSHUA M. KINDRED UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Paul R. James, Jr., a self-represented prisoner (“Plaintiff”), filed an “Affidavit Regarding Tampering with Evidence Sexual Harassments” and a “Civil Rule 4(f) Affidavit Summons.” The Court notified him his filing was deficient and sent him a copy of the Court's template complaint form. Then, Plaintiff filed a civil rights complaint (“Complaint”) and an application to waive prepayment of the filing fee.The Court screened the Complaint, found it deficient, but granted leave to amend.The Court also cautioned that non-procedurally compliant filings will not be considered. Plaintiff then filed a First Amended Complaint, a motion to appoint counsel, a “Notice Power of Attorney Agreement” and an “Affidavit Motion for Compelling and Press for Alaska Police Training Fund.” The Court screened the First Amended Complaint, found it deficient, and found amendment would be futile. However, in the interests of justice, the Court accorded Plaintiff an opportunity to voluntarily withdraw this case to avoid receiving a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff has since filed several documents that fail to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court's previous orders.
Dockets 1-2.
Docket 3.
Docket 6. Plaintiff's filing fee has now been paid in full (Receipt Nos. 100002167 and 100002170). Federal law requires that a prisoner may only waive prepayment of the fees associated with civil lawsuits, regardless of the outcome. See e.g., Antonetti v. Foster, No. 3:14-cv-495-JAD-VPC, 2015 WL 6437399, at *3 (D. Nev. Oct. 22, 2015) (“Plaintiff will ... be required to make monthly payments toward the full filing fee when he has funds available, even though this case is being dismissed.”).
Docket 8.
Docket 8 at 1.
Dockets 11-15.
Docket 16.
A voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 (a)(1) is not a dismissal for frivolity, maliciousness, or failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and, therefore, does not count as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Dockets 17-18.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice.
2. This dismissal counts as a “strike.”
3. After three strikes, a prisoner may no longer bring suits in federal courts without prepayment of the filing fee unless the prisoner can demonstrate an “imminent danger of serious physical injury.”
Id. See also Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051-52 (9th Cir. 2007) (addressing imminent danger exception for the first time in the Ninth Circuit); Ray v. Lara, 31 F.4th 692, 701 (9th Cir. 2022) (in order to qualify for the § 1915(g) imminent danger exception, a three-strikes prisoner must allege imminent danger of serious physical injury that is both fairly traceable to unlawful conduct alleged in his complaint and redressable by a federal court).
4. All pending motions are DENIED as moot.
5. The Clerk of Court shall issue a final judgment.