(PC) Hill v. Katavich
1:15-cv-00631
E.D. Cal.Jul 6, 2015Background
- Tony L. Hill, a state prisoner proceeding pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, filed this action and moved to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP).
- The Magistrate Judge issued Findings & Recommendations (F&R) recommending denial of IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), noting Hill had four prior qualifying dismissals ("strikes").
- The F&R concluded Hill failed to demonstrate he was under "imminent danger of serious physical injury" when he filed the complaint.
- Hill alleged assorted harms: tampered appeals, denial of canteen access, unsanitary food, harassment by officers, loss of funds, improper custody level, and two incidents where he believed officers gave him apples injected with poison.
- The district court conducted de novo review, found the F&R supported by the record, rejected Hill’s objections (including the poisoning allegations as implausible), and adopted the F&R.
- The court denied IFP, ordered payment of the $400 filing fee within 30 days, and warned that failure to pay would result in dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hill is barred from proceeding IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) due to prior strikes | Hill sought IFP status to pursue this § 1983 action | The court (relying on docket and prior dismissals) argued Hill has four strikes and thus is barred absent imminent danger | Court held Hill is subject to § 1915(g) because he had four prior strikes and may not proceed IFP without showing imminent danger |
| Whether Hill met the § 1915(g) "imminent danger" exception at the time of filing | Hill asserted ongoing threats including alleged poisoning incidents and other prison mistreatment | The court found the factual allegations insufficiently plausible or unrelated to show imminent danger at filing | Court held Hill failed to demonstrate imminent danger; his poisoning claims were implausible and other allegations did not satisfy the exception |
Key Cases Cited
- Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2007) (interpreting § 1915(g) imminent-danger exception; danger must be ongoing)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (standards for plausibility in pleadings)