(PC) Humes v. Sacramento County Superior Court
2:18-cv-00691
E.D. Cal.Jul 31, 2018Background
- Plaintiff Jon Humes, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a § 1983 complaint alleging a Fourteenth Amendment due-process violation arising from a Sacramento County arrest warrant issued after his sex-offender convictions were expunged.
- Humes filed motions to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and a separate motion for funds to facilitate discovery.
- Court records show three prior prisoner lawsuits by Humes were dismissed for failure to state a claim or as frivolous/malicious: Humes v. Sacramento County (No. 2:18-cv-0241), Humes v. Spence (No. 2:17-cv-2617), and Humes v. Faris (No. 2:17-cv-2440).
- Because those dismissals qualify as three “strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), Humes is precluded from proceeding IFP unless he alleges imminent danger of serious physical injury.
- The complaint does not allege imminent danger; accordingly the magistrate judge ordered denial of the discovery-funds motion as premature and recommended denying IFP and formally declaring Humes a three-strikes litigant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Humes may proceed IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) | Humes seeks IFP status to proceed with his § 1983 due-process claim | Court records show Humes has three prior dismissals that qualify as strikes, barring IFP absent imminent danger | Denied IFP; plaintiff must pay the filing fee because no imminent danger alleged |
| Whether prior dismissals should be formally treated as § 1915(g) strikes | Humes contests none in the order; seeks to proceed despite prior dismissals | Court treats Humes I and Faris as strikes and recommends formally designating Spence as a strike | Recommended: declare Humes a three-strikes litigant and treat Spence as a strike |
| Whether the motion for funds for discovery should be granted | Humes requests funds to facilitate discovery before paying filing fee | Funds motion is premature because IFP status is unresolved and filing fee unpaid | Denied as premature |
| Whether the complaint alleges imminent danger of serious physical injury | Humes alleges due-process injury from an arrest warrant tied to expunged convictions | No factual allegations show imminent danger of serious physical injury | No imminent-danger exception; IFP barred by § 1915(g) |
Key Cases Cited
- Knapp v. Hogan, 738 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2013) (reviewing dismissal orders to determine § 1915(g) strikes)
- Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2005) (prior dismissals qualify as strikes if dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim)
- United States v. Author Servs., Inc., 804 F.2d 1520 (9th Cir. 1986) (courts may take judicial notice of their own records)
- United States v. Jose, 131 F.3d 1325 (9th Cir. 1997) (discussing limits and applications of judicial notice)
- Diamond v. Pitchess, 411 F.2d 565 (9th Cir. 1969) (judicial notice of court records to assess IFP complaints)
- Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991) (notice that failure to timely object to magistrate findings may waive appeal rights)