The opinion of the court was delivered by: Susan Oki Mollway Chief United States District Judge
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND ACTION
Before the court is pro se plaintiff Francis Grandinetti's prisoner civil rights action. Grandinetti is a Hawaii inmate confined at the Saguaro Correctional Center ("SCC"), in Eloy, Arizona. Grandinetti appears to be attempting to circumvent the bar 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) imposes on his filings by labeling this action as "No. 1:96-cv-031." In the case bearing that number, he challenged his 1995 transfer from Hawaii to various out-of-state prisons operated by the Bobby Ross Group. See Grandinetti v. Iranon, 1:96-cv-00031 ACK. That action was transferred to the Eastern District of Texas on February 5, 1996, and has been closed for many years. Grandinetti now asserts claims never raised in that action. This court has therefore opened a new action. Grandinetti has not submitted an in forma pauperis application or paid the $350 statutory filing fee for commencing this action.
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.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). "[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.
At least three of Grandinetti's prior lawsuits qualify as "strikes" under § 1915(g):
(1) Grandinetti v. U.S. Marshals Serv., 1:00-cv-00489 SOM-KSC (D. Haw., § 1983 case dismissed for failure to state a claim, Aug. 1, 2001);
(2) Grandinetti v. Bobby Ross Group Inc., et al., 1:96-cv-00117 (E.D. Tex., § 1983 case dismissed as frivolous and for failure to state a claim on Mar. 5, 1999); and
(3) Grandinetti v. Iranon, et al., 1:96-cv-00101 (E.D. Tex., § 1983 case dismissed as frivolous and for failure to state a claim on Jan. 26, 1998).*fn1
See PACER Case Locator, http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov. Grandinetti 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).
"[T]he 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 "imminent danger of serious physical injury" cannot be triggered solely by complaints of past ...