United States District Court, D. Hawaii
Derrick K. Watson United States District Judge.
the court is pro se plaintiff Francis Grandinetti's
pleading, titled “Federal Lawyer Complaint
(ATC).” ECF No. 1. Grandinetti's Complaint
makes little sense, but it appears that he seeks appointment
of counsel to represent him for an upcoming parole board
hearing or to challenge his sentence in State v.
Grandinetti, Cr. No. 93-0141 (Haw. Cir. Ct.) (judgment
of conviction entered November 8, 1993) under Hawaii Rules of
Penal Procedure 35. See
https://jimspss1.courts.state.hi.us. (3PC930000141). For
the following reasons, this action is DISMISSED.
did not submit the filing fee or an application to proceed in
forma pauperis with his pleading. Grandinetti, however, has
accrued three strikes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(g) and has been notified of these strikes and
their effect on his pleadings many times. Thus, Grandinetti
may not proceed without payment of the 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).
within Grandinetti's pleadings suggests that he 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. He may not proceed in
this action without full payment of the civil and
administrative filing fee of $400.
Grandinetti's pleading is devoid of claims for relief or
facts from which a claim could be liberally construed and is
subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim on that
basis. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (stating, “a complaint must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, ‘to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face'”) (quoting
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007). Moreover, Grandinetti has no constitutional right to
be released on parole before the expiration of a valid
sentence, Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 220
(2011), and he has no constitutional right to counsel at a
parole consideration hearing, Dorado v. Kerr, 454
F.2d 892, 897 (9th Cir. 1972). See also Greenholtz v.
Inmates of Neb. Penal & Corr. Complex, 442 U.S. 1,
16 (1979) (finding that a parole consideration hearing is not
an “adversary proceeding, ” but
“essentially an experienced prediction based on a host
of variables”); cf. Coleman v. Thompson, 501
U.S 722, 752 (1991) (where there is no constitutional right
to counsel, there can be no deprivation of effective
assistance). Nor does this Court have jurisdiction to appoint
Grandinetti counsel to represent him before the Hawaii
Paroling Authority or for proceedings brought in a state
This action is DISMISSED without prejudice for
Grandinetti's failure to pay the full civil and
administrative filing fee of $400 as required by 28 U.S.C.
Clerk is DIRECTED to close this case. The Court will take no
further action herein beyond processing a notice of appeal;
Grandinetti may re-open this case if he pays the full $400
civil and administrative filing fee on or before December 6,
Grandinetti is incarcerated at the
Saguaro Correctional Center (“SCC”), located in
Eloy, Arizona, which is under contract with the Hawaii
Department of ...