United States District Court, D. Hawaii
Derrick K. Watson United States District Judge.
the court is pro se Plaintiff Francis Grandinetti's
prisoner civil rights Complaint. Grandinetti is incarcerated
at the Saguaro Correctional Center (“SCC”),
located in Eloy, Arizona. Plaintiff has not paid the $400.00
filing and administrative fees or filed an Application to
Proceed In Forma Pauperis. He apparently seeks to renew
claims that he previously raised regarding alleged injuries
he has received at SCC since 2008. Grandinetti alleges that
Defendant Patricia Sells, SCC “Regional Health Services
Director, ” supervisor with the Corrections Corporation
of America (CCA), and alleged agent of the Hawaii Department
of Public Safety (DPS), has denied him medical transfers.
See Compl., ECF No. 1, PageID #1. The Court will
dismiss this action.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)
prisoner may not bring a civil action or appeal a civil
judgment in forma pauperis if he 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).
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). “[T]he 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.
has accrued three strikes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(g),  and has been notified many times regarding
these strikes. He may not proceed without complete concurrent
payment of the civil filing and administrative fee, unless he
is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. 28 U.S.C.
NO IMMINENT DANGER
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 of
“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).
refers to injuries he allegedly received and challenged since
2008. In fact, Grandinetti recently sought to
renew these very same claims in Grandinetti v.
Stampfle, 1:16-cv-00436 JMS/RLP, against a different
defendant. In that action, Grandinetti attached five Medical
Requests that he had submitted to SCC personnel, that showed
Grandinetti received responses to his requests for care.
See Compl., 1:16-cv-00436 JMS/RLP, PageID #3-7.
Here, Grandinetti attaches three Medical Requests dated
January to February 2016, in which he sought a medical exam
before appearing for a parole hearing in April 2016.
See Compl., 1:16-cv-00517, ECF 1, PageId.
#2-4. These Requests show that SCC personnel addressed his
request but Grandinetti refused to attend any
medical appointments. Id., PageID #4. These
incidents cannot support a claim of imminent danger in this
action. Moreover, Grandinetti provides no explanation why
venue for his claims, concerning events that allegedly
occurred in Arizona and are alleged against an Arizona
resident, is proper in the District of Hawaii. See
28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
has not made a credible or coherent allegation that he is in
imminent danger of serious physical injury and his
allegations do not plausibly support such a finding. The
Court dismisses without prejudice Grandinetti's Complaint
and this action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). If
Grandinetti wishes to reassert these claims in the future, he
must prepay the entire $400.00 filing and administrative fees
when he files his action and must file his complaint on the
required court-approved form. He is further notified that
venue for these claims arises in the District of Arizona, not
the District of Hawaii.
This action is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g), for Grandinetti's failure to
concurrently pay the civil filing fee when ...