United States District Court, D. Hawaii
PETER R. TIA, #A1013142, Plaintiff,
ALL THE DEFENDANTS FROM USDC NO. CV15-0059 DKW-BMK, Defendants.
ORDER DENYING IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION AND DISMISSING ACTION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and 1915(g)
DERRICK K. WATSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the court is pro se Plaintiff Peter R. Tia’s prisoner civil rights Complaint and in forma pauperis (“IFP”) application. Doc. Nos. 1, 2. Tia sues “All the Defendants” named in Tia v. Staggs, et al., Civ. No. 15-00159 DKW/BMK (D. Haw. May 7, 2015), which was dismissed without prejudice on May 7, 2015, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Compl., Doc. No. 1.
Tia again alleges that Defendants are part of a Japanese conspiracy to prevent him from developing inventions to prevent global warming and cure certain cancers. Tia alleges that, because he is a Mormon, a Polynesian, and a member of one of the lost tribes of Israel (with Enrico Fermi and Al Capone), Defendants acted to prevent him from attending graduate school and perfecting his inventions. See generally, Compl., Doc. No. 1.
Tia’s IFP application is DENIED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and this action is DISMISSED as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
I. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)
A prisoner may not bring a civil action or appeal a civil judgment 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 Tia’s federal cases qualify as “strikes” under § 1915(g):
(1) Tia v. Fujita, Civ. No. 08-00575 HG/BMK (D. Haw. Jan. 27, 2009) (dismissed for failure to state a claim);
(2) Tia v. Criminal Investigation Demanded, Civ. No. 10-00383 SOM/BMK (D. Haw. Aug. 5, 2010) (dismissed as frivolous and for failure to state a claim); and
(3) Tia v. Criminal Investigation, Civ. No. 10-00441 DAE/BMK (D. Haw. July 30, 2010) (dismissed as frivolous and for failure to state a claim).
See PACER Case Locator http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov (last visited June 9, 2015). Tia has had notice and an opportunity to challenge these strikes. See, e.g., Tia v. Borges, 1:12-cv-00158 HG/BMK (D. Haw. 2012), and App. No. 12-16158 (9th Cir. Aug. 9, 2012), Doc. No. 26 (“[T]he district court correctly determined that appellant has had three or more prior actions or appeals dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim[.]”). Tia may not bring a civil action without ...