Arendas v. Ellebrecht
- Charles Breyer
- 3:20-cv-01678
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Arendas v. Ellebrecht, Judge Breyer dismissed the prisoner’s case without prejudice because three prior dismissals barred fee-free filing and no imminent serious injury was shown.
Peter John Arendas’s action was dismissed without prejudice. He may bring a new paid complaint, as stated in the order.
What happened
In Arendas v. Ellebrecht, Peter John Arendas brought a prisoner action seeking damages for an allegedly unlawful arrest based on an invalid Washington state warrant. He asked to proceed without paying the filing fee.
The court had found that three or more of Arendas’s earlier prisoner cases counted as dismissals under the filing-fee law and that he did not allege an imminent danger of serious physical injury. Arendas argued that those dismissals should not count because they occurred when he had limited legal knowledge.
Judge Breyer ruled that the prior dismissals counted and that Arendas did not qualify for the danger exception. The court dismissed the action without prejudice to filing a new complaint after paying the filing fee, and terminated Arendas’s motion as moot.
The detailed version
- Arendas v. Ellebrecht · No. 3:20-cv-01678
- Charles Breyer
- June 12, 2020
Background
Peter John Arendas, proceeding without a lawyer, brought a prisoner action seeking damages for an allegedly unlawful arrest based on an invalid Washington state warrant. He applied to proceed without paying the filing fee.
On April 10, 2020, the court denied his application to proceed without paying the fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That statute prevents a prisoner from proceeding without paying the fee if the prisoner has had three or more prior actions dismissed because they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim, unless the prisoner was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when filing the action. The court found that Arendas had three or more qualifying prior dismissals and did not meet the imminent-danger exception.
The court gave Arendas 28 days either to show why § 1915(g) did not apply or to pay the required $400 filing fee. The court warned that failing to do either would result in dismissal without prejudice to filing a new complaint after paying the fee.
Arendas’s Motion
Arendas filed a motion on April 27, 2020. He argued that the earlier dismissals should not count as qualifying dismissals because they occurred in 2010, when he was inexperienced in the law. He also argued that the three prior actions had been dismissed only for failure to state a claim.
The court rejected those arguments. It explained that dismissals for failure to state a claim count under § 1915(g), and that a person’s status as an unrepresented litigant or limited legal skills do not change whether a prior dismissal counts.
Ruling and Disposition
The court concluded that § 1915(g) barred Arendas from proceeding without paying the filing fee because he had three or more qualifying dismissals and did not qualify for the imminent-danger exception. The action was dismissed without prejudice to bringing it in a new paid complaint. The clerk was instructed to close the file and terminate as moot the motion listed as ECF No. 4. The court did not decide whether the alleged arrest was unlawful.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.