Ainsworth v. CDCR

Background

Tyrell Ainsworth, a state prisoner, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against various state actors and correctional institutions. He also moved to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), meaning without paying the filing fee in advance.

The court determined that Ainsworth had at least three prior federal actions dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a claim. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), commonly called the three-strikes rule, a prisoner with three such dismissals generally may not proceed IFP unless he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the action.

Imminent-Danger Exception

The court gave Ainsworth an opportunity to show why the three-strikes restriction should not apply and informed him that he could avoid dismissal by paying the filing fee. Ainsworth filed an initial response and several supplemental filings, including a supplemental complaint. He did not dispute that the three identified prior actions qualified as strikes.

Instead, Ainsworth invoked the imminent-danger exception. He alleged that, at an institution he did not identify, he had been denied appropriate medical care and had been physically and sexually harassed by unnamed staff. He also referred to grievance forms from R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility and alleged an ongoing threat at Corcoran State Prison. The court found that these allegations did not specifically show an imminent danger of serious physical injury.

The court also applied a required connection, or “nexus,” test. The test asks whether the alleged imminent danger is fairly traceable to unlawful conduct asserted in the complaint and whether a favorable outcome would remedy that danger. The court concluded that the second part of the test was not met because a favorable result in this case could remedy only injuries suffered within the Northern District of California, while the alleged imminent danger occurred at prisons outside that district. The court further stated that Ainsworth’s claims involving other institutions were not properly joined because he had not shown that they arose from the same set of events, and that his allegations of a mult prison conspiracy were conclusory.

Ruling

The court concluded that Ainsworth had not shown that any of the three strikes failed to qualify, that he met the imminent-danger exception, or that he had otherwise shown cause to avoid the statutory restriction. Judge Rita F. Lin denied the motion to proceed IFP and dismissed the 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.