Eckard v. Cornell

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: February 10, 2020
• Docket: 2:19-cv-01961
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 GABRIEL ALLEN ECKARD, 9 Plaintiff, CASE NO. C19-1961-RSM 10 v. 11 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND ADAM CORNELL, et al., RECOMMENDATION TO DENY IFP 12 STATUS Defendants. 13

14 This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the 15 Honorable Brian A. Tsuchida, United States Magistrate Judge. Dkt. #4. Having reviewed 16 Plaintiff’s Complaint, Dkt. #1-1, the R&R, and Plaintiff’s Objections, Dkt. #6, the Court agrees 17 with the R&R to deny Plaintiff in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status pursuant to the “three strikes” rule, 18 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and order that he pay the Court’s filing fee before proceeding with his 19 complaint in this action. 20 Section 1915(g) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) denies IFP status to 21 prisoners who have had three or more civil actions dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or because 22 the case fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, unless the inmate is in danger of 23 serious physical injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff has had more than three cases dismissed

ORDER ADOPTING R&R 1 that count as a strike under this provision. See Eckard v. Riszk, No. C19-813-RSM, Dkt. #9; 2 Eckard v. Caraway, C19-679-RSL, Dkt. #10; Eckard v. Jones, C19-832-RAJ, Dkt. #10; Eckard v. 3 Aston, C19-879-RAJ, Dkt. #10; Eckard v. Zacharias, C19-833-BJR, Dkt. #27; Eckard v. Roy, C19- 4 834-RSL, Dkt. #8. The Court finds no error in the R&R’s conclusion that Plaintiff’s allegations

5 are insufficient to trigger the “imminent danger” exception under Section 1915(g). Accordingly, 6 the three-strikes rule applies. 7 Plaintiff objects to the R&R on the basis that the strikes do not count towards him “until 8 he has exhausted his appeals.” Dkt. #6 at 1. There is no support for Plaintiff’s interpretation. The 9 plain language of § 1915(g) precludes IFP status for a “civil action or appeal” so long as the 10 prisoner has brought three or more “actions[s] or appeal[s].” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Nothing in the 11 text of the statute supports Plaintiff’s interpretation that a district court’s dismissal must be 12 affirmed before it may count as a strike. El-Shaddai v. Zamora, 833 F.3d 1036, 1045 (9th Cir. 13 2016) (“[T]he statute speaks only of dismissals, not affirmances. The choice of the word ‘dismiss’

14 rather than ‘affirm’ in relation to appeals was unlikely an act of careless draftsmanship.”) (quoting 15 Thompson v. Drug Enf’t Admin., 492 F.3d 428, 436 (D.C. Cir. 2007)) (internal quotations omitted). 16 Plaintiff’s reading of Section 1915(g) would allow a prisoner three frivolous civil actions and 17 potentially three frivolous appeals. The Ninth Circuit has found this interpretation contrary to 18 Congress’ intent in passing the PLRA. Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1178 (9th Cir. 1999). 19 The remainder of Plaintiff’s Objections include various threats of violence against this 20 Court without legal argument. See Dkt. #6 at 1-2. 21 CONCLUSION 22 Accordingly, having reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint, the Report and Recommendation of 23 Judge Tsuchida, and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS:

ORDER ADOPTING R&R 1 1) The Report and Recommendation, Dkt. #4, is APPROVED and ADOPTED. 2 2) Plaintiff’s IFP status is DENIED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff is 3 ordered to pay the Court filing fee of $400.00 no later than thirty (30) days from 4 the date of this order. Failure to pay the filing fee will result in dismissal of this

5 case without prejudice. 6 3) The Clerk shall send a copy of this Order to Plaintiff and to the Honorable Brian 7 A. Tsuchida. 8 9 DATED this 10 day of February 2020. 10 A 11 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ 12 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

ORDER ADOPTING R&R