Ainsworth v. Mazariegos
- 3:24-cv-03053
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Ainsworth v. Mazariegos, the court revoked IFP status and dismissed the action without prejudice because no imminent-danger exception applied.
Tyrell Devonte Ainsworth’s federal civil-rights action was dismissed without prejudice, and he may pursue the claims in a new complaint only by paying the filing fee. The defendants received judgment in their favor in this action.
What happened
In Ainsworth v. Mazariegos, Tyrell Devonte Ainsworth brought a civil-rights lawsuit under Section 1983 alleging that prison guards violated his constitutional rights. He also asked to proceed without paying the filing fee.
The court found that Ainsworth had at least three prior federal cases dismissed for reasons that count as strikes under the prisoner-filing statute. Ainsworth did not challenge those strikes and did not show that he faced an imminent danger connected to the misconduct alleged in this case.
The court revoked Ainsworth’s status allowing him to proceed without paying the fee and dismissed the action without prejudice, allowing him to bring the claims in a new paid complaint. The court also directed the clerk to enter judgment for the defendants and close the case.
The detailed version
- Ainsworth v. Mazariegos · No. 3:24-cv-03053
- Mar. 13, 2025
Background
Tyrell Devonte Ainsworth, identified in the opinion as a state prisoner, filed this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that prison guards at Salinas Valley State Prison violated his constitutional rights. He also requested permission to proceed without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and that request had initially been granted.
The court later determined that Ainsworth might be barred from proceeding without paying because he had at least three prior federal actions dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim. Section 1915(g) generally prevents a prisoner with three such dismissals, commonly called strikes, from proceeding without paying the filing fee unless the prisoner was under imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed.
Imminent-danger exception
The court identified three prior actions that appeared to qualify as strikes. Ainsworth did not dispute that those actions counted. Instead, he relied on the imminent-danger exception. He alleged that, when he filed the complaint, guards at California Men’s Colony in San Luis Obispo endangered him by unlocking another prisoner’s door and allowing that prisoner to attack him.
The court rejected that argument because the alleged danger at California Men’s Colony was not connected to the claims in this case, which concerned alleged misconduct by guards at Salinas Valley State Prison. The court also found that allegations of danger at Salinas Valley were immaterial because Ainsworth was not there when he filed the complaint. Applying the required connection between the alleged danger and the claims, the court concluded that Ainsworth had not shown that the exception applied.
Ruling
The court revoked Ainsworth’s status allowing him to proceed without paying the filing fee. It dismissed the federal civil-rights action without prejudice to Ainsworth bringing his claims in a new paid complaint. The clerk was directed to enter judgment in favor of the defendants and close the file.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.