The opinion of the court was delivered by: Helen Gillmor Helen Gillmor United States District Judge
DISMISSAL ORDER DISMISSAL ORDER
Before the court is pro se Plaintiff Peter Ray Tia's prisoner civil rights Complaint and in forma pauperis ("IFP") application. On July 16, 2012, Plaintiff was ordered to show cause on or before August 10, 2012, why he should be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in this action. ECF #4. Plaintiff has not responded to the court's order.
A prisoner may not bring a civil action or appeal a civil judgment in forma pauperis if: the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
"[Section] 1915(g) should be used to deny a prisoner's IFP status only when, after careful evaluation of the order dismissing an action, and other relevant information, the district court determines that the action was dismissed because it was frivolous, malicious or failed to state a claim." Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005). "In some instances, the district court docket records may be sufficient to show that a prior dismissal satisfies at least one of the criteria under § 1915(g) and therefore counts as a strike." Id. at 1120.
Plaintiff is well acquainted with the federal courts, having filed more than twenty-seven federal civil actions and appeals since 2001. See http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov. (PACER Case Locator). In its Order to Show Cause, the court notified Plaintiff that the following cases qualified as "strikes" under § 1915(g):
(1) Tia v. Fujita, 1:08-cv-00575 HG (D. Haw. Jan. 27, 2009) (dismissed for failure to state a claim);
(2) Tia v. Criminal Investigation Demanded, 1:10-cv-00383 SOM (D. Haw. Aug. 5, 2010) (dismissed as frivolous and for failure to state a claim); and
(3) Tia v. Criminal Investigation, 1:10-cv-00441 DAE (D. Haw. Jul. 30, 2010) (dismissed as frivolous and for failure to state a claim).*fn1
Plaintiff may not bring a civil action without complete prepayment of the $350.00 filing fee unless he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
To meet the "imminent danger" requirement, the "threat or prison condition [must be] real and proximate," Ciarpaglini v. Saini, 352 F.3d 328, 330 (7th Cir. 2003) (quoting Lewis v. Sullivan, 279 F.3d 526, 531 (7th Cir. 2002)), and the allegations must be "specific or credible." Kinnell v. Graves, 265 F.3d 1125, 1128 (10th Cir. 2001). Further, "the availability of the [imminent danger] exception turns on the conditions a prisoner faced at the time the complaint was filed, not some earlier or later time." Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2007). "[T]he exception applies if the complaint makes a plausible allegation that the prisoner faced 'imminent danger of serious physical injury' at the time of filing." Id. at 1055. Claims concerning an "imminent danger of serious physical injury" cannot be triggered solely by complaints of past abuse. See Ashley v. Dilworth, 147 F.3d 715, 717 (8th Cir. 1998); Luedtke v. Bertrand, 32 F. Supp. 2d 1074, 1077 (E.D. Wis. 1999).
Plaintiff's Complaint is semi-incoherent; he broadly alleges that Defendants are or have been conspiring to violate his constitutional rights since his incarceration in Tennessee sometime between 1996-2006. Plaintiff apparently claims that Defendants, adult correctional officers in Hawaii and possibly in Tennessee, have or are conspiring with a Montana inmate, Chris McKeon, with whom Plaintiff had an altercation in Tennessee prior to 2006. Plaintiff says that this conspiracy, which involves McKeon, Tennessee and Hawaii prison officials, the Crips street gang, the USO street gang, and a Tennessee inmate named "G-loc," resulted in his "kidnapping" and continued incarceration. Plaintiff says that he ...