El-Shaddai v. Muniz

Background

Adonai El-Shaddai, also identified as James Ray Wilkerson, was incarcerated at Deuel Vocational Institution when he filed this pro se civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His operative complaint concerned events during an earlier incarceration at Salinas Valley State Prison. He alleged that prison officials denied requests for Kinni-Kinnick ceremonial tobacco or another ritual herbal smoke blend that he considered essential to practicing his religion, described in the complaint as the “Messianic Kabbalistic Order of Melchizedek.”

The court had previously allowed him to proceed without prepaying the filing fee and had found that his allegations appeared to state constitutional claims involving religious exercise, due process, and equal protection. The court also said the allegations implicated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act and that related California claims could proceed under supplemental jurisdiction. Those earlier observations were not a decision that El-Shaddai would win on those claims.

Defendants’ Motion

Defendants moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) to revoke El-Shaddai’s in forma pauperis status, meaning permission to litigate without paying the filing fee at the start, and to dismiss the action without prejudice. They argued that at least three of his earlier cases had been dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim. The court granted defendants’ request to take judicial notice of records from the earlier proceedings.

The court reviewed three identified prior proceedings: No. 2:14-cv-09313 GHK (JC), No. S-99-1539 LKK DAD P, and No. C 94-0035 FMS. To avoid repeating a prior caption that could identify the same party more fully, the first is described here as a prior related proceeding. The court found that each qualified as a “strike” under section 1915(g). It held that a dismissal based on a statute of limitations could count as a failure-to-state-a-claim dismissal, that failure to file an amended complaint after receiving leave to amend did not make the dismissal voluntary, and that the 1994 dismissal could count even though it predated the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s effective date.

Imminent-Danger Exception

A prisoner with three qualifying strikes may still proceed without prepaying the fee if the complaint plausibly alleges imminent danger of serious physical injury when filed. El-Shaddai’s complaint focused on religious accommodations and did not allege such a danger. In his opposition, he referred to medical conditions, but the court found those allegations were not in the complaint and were unrelated to the religious-practice claims. The court therefore found that the exception did not apply.

Ruling and Effect

The court granted defendants’ motion to revoke El-Shaddai’s in forma pauperis status and to dismiss the action without prejudice. It vacated the earlier order granting that status. The case was dismissed without prejudice to filing a motion to reopen within 28 days, accompanied by the full $350 filing fee. If he did not do so within that period, the order stated that he could pursue the claims by filing a new civil-rights case and paying the full filing fee.

The court terminated the remaining pending motions as moot, including El-Shaddai’s motion for partial summary judgment and motion to strike, and defendants’ motions to stay and for an extension of time. Judge Yvonne Rogers also ordered the clerk to close the case.

Classification

This was a procedural order. The court dismissed the action based on the filing-fee and three-strikes requirements and did not decide whether the alleged restrictions violated El-Shaddai’s constitutional, statutory, or state-law rights.