Opinion
2:22-cv-01252-JDP (PC)
11-07-2022
ALLEN HAMMLER, Plaintiff, v. REGINA JOHNSON, et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO FILE LENGTHY COMPLAINT AND DIRECTING THAT PLAINTIFF SHOW CAUSE WHY HIS APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS SHOULD NOT BE DENIED AND HE BE DIRECTED TO PAY THE ENTIRE FILING FEE
ECF Nos. 2 & 5
JEREMY D. PETERSON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff, a state prisoner, brings this section 1983 action and, concurrently, has applied to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 5. He is, however, a “three-striker” within the meaning of Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). He may only proceed in forma pauperis if he shows that he is within imminent physical danger. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). His current complaint does not make that showing.
See, e.g., Hammler v. Dignity Health, No. 1:20-cv-1778-JLT-HBK (PC), 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 230439, at *10-13 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2021); Hammler v. California, No. 1:20-cv-00630-DAD-GSA (PC), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81763, at *1-8 (E.D. Cal. May 8, 2020); Hammler v. Diaz, No. 1:20-cv-0488-JLT (PC), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210627, at *1-5 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2020); Hammler v. Compose, No. 1:19-cv-01149-DAD-GSA (PC), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154434, at *4-6 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 10, 2019); Hammler v. Allison, No. 1:21-cv-00122-AWI-GSA (PC), 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19966, at *11-14 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2021); Hammler v. California, No. 1:19-cv-01057-LJO-SAB (PC), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171498, at *2-4 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2019); Hammler v. Burns, No. 1:20-cv-00489-SAB (PC), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62772, at *1-6 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2020); Hammler v. Diaz, No. 1:20-cv-0488-JLT (PC), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210627, at *4-7 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2020).
Plaintiff names at least twenty-six defendants and alleges numerous violations of his rights, all of which he claims are connected by way of an overarching conspiracy. He claims, for instance, that in March 2022, defendants Herrera and Schuman used excessive force against him. ECF No. 1 at 19-20. Separately, he alleges that, after this attack, medical defendants failed to ensure that his wounds were cared for appropriately. Id. at 27-28. He also claims that after declaring his intent to sue over the attack, defendant Capossele brought him a false rules violation report and oversaw a rights-deficient disciplinary hearing in retaliation. Id. at 28-29, 34-35. Finally, plaintiff refences other attacks on his person by other defendants (not Herrera or Schuman). Id. at 38-39. Plaintiff has not specifically alleged what, if any, imminent harm he now faces, however. Moreover, given that the complaint encompasses so many separate claims, I cannot tell whether any risk of imminent harm, to the extent it might exist, is sufficiently related to the crux of the suit. Plaintiff may respond to this order within thirty days with an amended complaint that explains why he should be allowed to proceed notwithstanding his status as a “three-striker.”
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's motion to file a complaint in excess of twenty-five pages, ECF No. 2, is GRANTED.
2. The Clerk of Court is directed to send plaintiff a section 1983 complaint form.
3. Within thirty days plaintiff may file an amended complaint that explains why he should be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis and that contains only related claims. If he fails to do so, I will recommend that this application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied and he be required to tender the full filing fee.
IT IS SO ORDERED.