United States District Court, D. Hawaii
A. OTAKE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the court is pro se prisoner Francis Grandinetti's
pleading, titled “On Habeas Corpus Complaint On TRO and
PI Application.” ECF No. 1. Grandinetti apparently
complains about the conditions of confinement at the Saguaro
Correctional Center (“SCC”); he clearly does not
challenge his conviction or sentence, or seek earlier
release. The Court therefore construes this pleading as a
civil rights complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983, rather than as a petition for writ of habeas corpus.
See Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 927 (9th Cir.
2016) (discussing when an action properly seeks habeas relief
and when claims are not within the “core of
habeas” and must be brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983); see also Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d
1113, 1122-23, n.12 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Andrews
I”) (recognizing that prisoners sometimes mislabel
civil rights actions as habeas petitions to avoid the
penalties imposed by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)).
somewhat unclear, Grandinetti complains about incidents that
occurred at SCC, which is located in Eloy, Arizona, between
May 2 and 10, 2019, between him and Defendant inmate Joshua
Langbridge. Grandinetti alleges that Langbridge is a
“(Gang/STG roommate).” Id. at PageID #2.
Exhibits attached to Grandinetti's Complaint reveal that
he did not want a cellmate and did not want to participate in
SHIP1 programming. Grandinetti complains of “[c]onstant
gang-threats, PREA, and gang punishments from [Langbridge]
(Cell lights always off, no rec, ‘no writing;'
constant verbal fights, arguments over toilet use, etc.)
‘BIBB gang.'” Id.
about May 10, 2019, Grandinetti reported that Langbridge
possessed contraband. Langbridge called Grandinetti a rat and
a traitor, and threatened him. Prison staff separated
Grandinetti and Langbridge into different areas of the
module. Grandinetti remains separated from Langbridge and, to
date, nothing has happened. Grandinetti apparently feels
threatened by Langbridge and other gang members. Prison staff
are aware of the incident and apparently moved Grandinetti
back to Ship1 on May 16, 2019.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)
has accrued three strikes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(g) and may not proceed without prepayment of
the complete civil filing fee, unless his pleadings show that
he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury at the
time that he brought this action. See Andrews v.
Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053, 1055 (9th Cir. 2007)
(“Andrews II”). Nothing within the
record suggests that Grandinetti is or was in imminent danger
of serious physical injury when he filed this action or that
there is a continuing practice that injured him in the past
that poses an “ongoing danger.” Id. at
1056. Rather, Grandinetti's exhibits show that he alerted
SCC prison officials regarding his fears, has been separated
from Langbridge, and is seen regularly by prison mental and
also fails to explain why he brings this suit, in which he
challenges conditions of confinement at SCC, in the District
of Hawaii, rather than in the District of Arizona, where SCC
is located and any events at issue presumably occurred. Venue
for claims challenging the conditions of confinement in a
prison located in Arizona normally lies in the District of
Arizona. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
he does not plausibly allege that he is in imminent danger of
serious physical injury, Grandinetti may not proceed in forma
pauperis in this action. The June 17, 2019 Deficiency Order,
ECF No. 2, is VACATED and any request to proceed in forma
pauperis in this action is DENIED.
Complaint and this action are DISMISSED without prejudice
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Grandinetti may
reassert these claims in a new action in Arizona with
concurrent payment of the full civil filing fee. The Clerk is
directed to terminate this case. The Court will take no
further action in this case beyond processing any notice of
See, e.g., Grandinetti v.
FTC Seg. Unit Staff, 426 Fed.Appx. 576 (9th Cir. 2011);
Grandinetti v. Abercrombie, Civ. No. 15-00007
LEK-RLP (D. Haw. 2015); Grandinetti v. Shimoda, Civ.
No. 05-00442 JMS-BMK (D. Haw. 2005); Grandinetti v.