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, titled “Hawaii Pro Se
Plaintiff Rule 65 TRO Motion/Application. ECF No. 1.
Grandinetti's pleading, in its entirety, states:
Before a reply on the DOC 0450 form above, and also before
the grievance process is done on form above, a TRO, FRCP Rule
65 Motion, and a 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) tort claim are
hereby filed on motion hereof.
Id. The “form” Grandinetti refers to is
a Medical Request dated October 10, 2018, that apparently
recounts Grandinetti's discussion with Saguaro
Correctional Center (SCC) prison officials regarding his
readiness for the programming required to be considered for
parole. Grandinetti states: “(1) Not ready for
SHIP1-2-3, (2) Not ready for GP, (3) Not ready for work,
school, nor HPA board.” Id. Attached to the
Complaint are numerous documents, including twenty-one
additional Medical Requests, a medical report, three inmate
requests, and three letters to the Office of the Ombudsman.
extent Grandinetti's pleading is meant as a civil rights
Complaint, and this is unclear, it is DISMISSED.
filed this action on October 15, 2018. Because he neither
paid the civil filing fee nor submitted an in forma pauperis
(IFP) application, the Court issued a Deficiency Order,
directing Grandinetti to submit one or the other within
twenty-eight days, on or before November 13, 2018. Ord., ECF
No. 2. Grandinetti has done neither.
extent Grandinetti asserts a civil rights claim under 42
U.S.C. § 1983, he fails to state any cognizable claim
for relief. His Complaint makes little sense, and the Court
is unable to discern any claims for relief. Grandinetti does
not explain what Defendant Dr. Hegmann did or failed to do
that violated any of his constitutional rights, and the
documents he attaches in support of his pleading do not
clarify his claims.
Court must screen all prisoner complaints pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(a). Claims that are
frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim for relief, or
seek damages from defendants who are immune from suit must be
dismissed. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122,
1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (discussing §
1915(e)(2)); Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1004
(9th Cir. 2010) (discussing § 1915A(b)).
Grandinetti's pleading is subject to dismissal as wholly
incomprehensible and frivolous. Amendment of this pleading is
clearly futile. See Sylvia Landfield Tr. v. City of
L.A., 729 F.3d 1189, 1196 (9th Cir. 2013) (holding that,
if a claim or complaint cannot be saved by amendment,
dismissal with prejudice is appropriate).
because Grandinetti has accrued more than three strikes under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g),  and does not make “a plausible
allegation that [he] faced ‘imminent danger of serious
physical injury' at the time of filing, ” he may
not proceed IFP in this action. Andrews v.
Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1055 (9th Cir. 2007). Thus,
even if he had timely submitted a completed IFP Application,
it would be denied.
the Complaint and this action are DISMISSED as frivolous and
for Grandinetti's failure to timely pay the civil filing
fee or respond to the court's Deficiency Order.
Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice as frivolous. To the
extent he seeks a temporary restraining order or any other
relief based on his pleading, all pending motions or requests
are DENIED. This action is also terminated for
Grandinetti's failure to pay the civil filing fee or
otherwise respond to the October 16, 2018 Deficiency Order.
Clerk shall close the file. Grandinetti is NOTIFIED that the
Court will take no action on any further requests or motions
submitted in this ...