Edward Ray, Jr. v. E. Lara
31 F.4th 692
9th Cir.2022Background
- Ray, a California state prisoner, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging a corrections officer (Lara) censored and confiscated his mail. He moved to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP).
- The district court denied IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (three-strikes rule), identifying three prior dismissals it treated as strikes: Farrell, Basa (both Heck dismissals), and Friedlander (prosecutorial immunity).
- The court rejected Ray’s imminent-danger claim because it found no nexus between the danger he alleged (housing as a Sensitive Needs Yard inmate placed in general population) and his mail-tampering claims; Ray did not pay the filing fee and the case was dismissed.
- On appeal, the Ninth Circuit considered (1) whether the three strikes were properly attributed and (2) whether the § 1915(g) imminent-danger exception requires a nexus between the danger alleged and the complaint’s claims.
- The Ninth Circuit held the district court’s procedural notice was adequate, the three dismissals qualified as strikes, and the imminent-danger exception requires a nexus (traceability and redressability). Ray’s allegations failed that test, so he remained barred from proceeding IFP.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural adequacy of district court’s sua sponte § 1915(g) ruling (Andrews I issue) | Ray: Court should have given additional opportunity or order to show cause identifying strikes. | Lara/District: Court identified the three cases in its order; Andrews I burden-shifting context inapplicable here. | Court: No extra process required; naming the three prior dismissals satisfied notice. |
| Whether the cited prior dismissals qualify as three § 1915(g) strikes | Ray: Prior dismissals should not count as strikes (argued Heck/immunity were not facially obvious). | District: Farrell and Basa were Heck-barred; Friedlander dismissed on prosecutorial immunity—each qualifies as a strike. | Court: Farrell and Basa were facially Heck-barred; Friedlander was an exceptional immunity dismissal apparent on the complaint—each counts as a strike. |
| Whether the § 1915(g) imminent-danger exception requires a nexus to the complaint | Ray: Exception need not be linked to the substantive claim; any imminent danger suffices. | Lara/District: Exception applies only where imminent danger is fairly traceable to and redressable by relief on the claims. | Court: Exception requires nexus—imminent danger must be fairly traceable to unlawful conduct alleged and redressable by relief; Ray failed to meet this test. |
Key Cases Cited
- Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2005) (procedural burden-shifting when a defendant challenges IFP status)
- Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2007) (imminent-danger analysis permitting entire complaint to proceed if one claim alleges imminent danger)
- Washington v. L.A. Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 833 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2016) (Heck-dismissal may qualify as a strike when Heck bar is facially obvious)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1994) (§ 1983 damages claim barred if success would imply invalidity of uninvalidated conviction)
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (U.S. 1976) (absolute prosecutorial immunity for functions intimately associated with judicial phase)
- Pettus v. Morgenthau, 554 F.3d 293 (2d Cir. 2009) (adopts nexus test: imminent danger must be traceable to claims and redressable)
- Harris v. Harris, 935 F.3d 670 (9th Cir. 2019) (statutory interpretation principles for § 1915(g))
- Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir. 2015) (relating imminent-danger allegations to complaint’s claims)