Caraffa v. Arizona, State of

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: January 15, 2021
• Docket: 2:20-cv-02451
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO MDR 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Alfred E. Caraffa, No. CV 20-02451-PHX-MTL (ESW) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 State of Arizona, et al., 13 Defendants.

14 15 On December 21, 2020, Plaintiff Alfred E. Caraffa,1 who is confined in a Maricopa 16 County Jail, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint (Doc. 1) and an Application to Proceed In 17 Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). On January 7, 2021, she filed a “Motion for: Fed. R. Civ. P. for 18 Jury Trial Demanded Rule 79(3)” (Doc. 5). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the Court 19 will deny the Application to Proceed, dismiss the Complaint and this action without 20 prejudice, and deny as moot Plaintiff’s Motion. 21 I. Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) 22 A prisoner may not bring a civil action or appeal a civil judgment in forma pauperis 23 (“IFP”) if: 24 the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or 25 appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the 26 grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim 27

28 1 Plaintiff is housed in a male facility but uses feminine pronouns to refer to herself. The Court will do the same. upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under 1 imminent danger of serious physical injury. 2 3 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 4 “[Section] 1915(g) should be used to deny a prisoner’s IFP status only when, after 5 careful evaluation of the order dismissing an action, and other relevant information, the 6 district court determines that the action was dismissed because it was frivolous, malicious 7 or failed to state a claim.” Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005). “In 8 some instances, the district court docket records may be sufficient to show that a prior 9 dismissal satisfies at least one of the criteria under § 1915(g) and therefore counts as a 10 strike.” Id. at 1120. 11 At least three of Plaintiff’s prior actions qualify as “strikes” under § 1915(g): 12 (1) Caraffa v. Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department, CV 20- 00013-PHX-MTL (ESW) (Mar. 3, 2020 Order and Judgment 13 dismissing Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a 14 claim); 15 (2) Caraffa v. Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, CV 20-00227- PHX-MTL (ESW) (Mar. 30, 2020 Order and Judgment 16 dismissing Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a 17 claim); 18 (3) Caraffa v. CHS, CV 20-00256-PHX-MTL (ESW) (Feb. 10, 2020 Order dismissing Complaint for failure to state a claim, 19 with leave to amend, and Apr. 13, 2020 Judgment for failure to file amended complaint). 20 21 Therefore, Plaintiff may not bring a civil action without complete prepayment of the 22 $350.00 filing fee and $50.00 administrative fee unless she is in imminent danger of serious 23 physical injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 24 II. Imminent Danger 25 To meet the “imminent danger” requirement, the “threat or prison condition [must 26 be] real and proximate,” Ciarpaglini v. Saini, 352 F.3d 328, 330 (7th Cir. 2003) (quoting 27 Lewis v. Sullivan, 279 F.3d 526, 531 (7th Cir. 2002)), and the allegations must be “specific 28 or credible.” Kinnell v. Graves, 265 F.3d 1125, 1128 (10th Cir. 2001). “[T]he exception 1| applies if the complaint makes a plausible allegation that the prisoner faced ‘imminent 2| danger of serious physical injury’ at the time of filing.” Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 3| 1047, 1055 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting § 1915(g)). Moreover, although a court considering a 4 motion to proceed in forma pauperis, “should not attempt to evaluate the seriousness of a plaintiff’s claims[, ... ] it has never been the rule that courts must blindly accept a prisoner’s allegations of imminent danger.” Taylor v. Watkins, 623 F.3d 483, 485 (7th Cir. 2010). 8 Plaintiffs allegations in her twenty-five-count Complaint do not plausibly suggest she is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. Thus, the Court will deny □□□□□□□□□□ 10 | Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and will dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint and this 11 | action, without prejudice, pursuant to § 1915(g). If Plaintiff wants to reassert these claims 12 | inthe future, she must prepay the entire $400.00 filing and administrative fees when she 13 | files her action. 14| ITIS ORDERED: 15 (1) Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2) is denied. 16 (2) Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1) and this action are dismissed without 17 | prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). If Plaintiff wishes to reassert these claims in 18 | the future, she must prepay the entire $400.00 filing and administrative fees when she files 19 | _ her action. 20 (3) ‘Plaintiffs “Motion for: Fed. R. Civ. P. for Jury Trial Demanded Rule 21} 79(3)’ (Doc. 5) is denied as moot. 22 (4) The Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 23 Dated this 15th day of January, 2021. 24 Wickadl T. Siuad Michael T. Liburdi 27 United States District Judge 28