(PC) Hammler v. Burns
1:20-cv-00489
| E.D. Cal. | Apr 30, 2020Background
- Allen Hammler, a state prisoner proceeding pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, filed a complaint on April 6, 2020 but did not pay the $400 filing fee or submit an IFP application.
- The Court noted Hammler has suffered three or more strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and ordered him to show cause why he should not be required to pay the filing fee.
- The complaint alleges deprivation of personal property (including a television) in 2018–2019 that Hammler says prevented him from practicing his religion and harmed his mental health.
- Hammler responded, asserting ongoing mental-health vulnerabilities and that loss of his television places him in imminent danger of serious physical injury.
- The magistrate judge found no factual allegations showing Hammler faced imminent danger at the time the complaint was filed and determined the alleged harms relate to past incidents (2018–2019).
- The magistrate judge ordered the Clerk to assign a district judge and recommended Hammler be required to pay the $400 filing fee (i.e., he is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis); 14 days to object were provided.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hammler qualifies for the §1915(g) "imminent danger" exception to proceed IFP despite three strikes | Hammler: ongoing mental-health risk and threat of losing TV used for religious services constitute imminent danger | Defendants/Court: Hammler has ≥3 strikes and the complaint alleges past deprivations (2018–2019); no present imminent danger at filing | Court held Hammler did not demonstrate imminent danger at time of filing; not entitled to proceed IFP and must pay $400 or face dismissal |
| Whether the alleged danger is sufficiently connected to the claims in the complaint (nexus requirement) | Hammler: mental-health condition and threat to TV are related to his religious-practice claim | Defendants/Court: current assertions are not the same events or claims pled; nexus to the complaint is lacking | Court held there is no adequate nexus between the asserted imminent danger and the complaint’s claims |
| Whether speculative or historic allegations can satisfy imminent-danger standard | Hammler: past deprivation and ongoing mental issues imply present risk | Defendants/Court: imminent danger must be real, present, and specifically pleaded, not speculative | Court held speculative, past, or conclusory assertions do not meet the imminent-danger exception |
| Procedural consequence if IFP not allowed | Hammler: requests to proceed without prepayment implied | Defendants/Court: require prepayment of filing fee given §1915(g) strikes | Court recommended requiring payment of the $400 filing fee and warned of dismissal if unpaid; Clerk to assign district judge |
Key Cases Cited
- Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2007) (establishes that the imminent-danger exception is assessed at time of filing and requires a nexus to the complaint)
- Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. 2014) (failure to timely object to magistrate findings may waive appellate issues)
- Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391 (9th Cir. 1991) (procedural waiver for failure to object to magistrate recommendations)
- Pettus v. Morgenthau, 554 F.3d 293 (2d Cir. 2009) (requires nexus between alleged imminent danger and the claims in the complaint)
- Martin v. Shelton, 319 F.3d 1048 (8th Cir. 2003) (imminent-danger showing requires specific factual allegations of ongoing serious physical injury or a pattern evidencing likelihood of such injury)
- White v. Colorado, 157 F.3d 1226 (10th Cir. 1998) (vague or conclusory assertions of harm are insufficient to invoke imminent-danger exception)
- Lewis v. Sullivan, 279 F.3d 526 (7th Cir. 2002) (imminent-danger exception applies only to genuine emergencies where threats are real and proximate)