Arendas v. Altizer
- Charles Breyer
- 3:20-cv-02702
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Arendas v. Altizer, Judge Breyer dismissed the prisoner’s case without prejudice because Arendas could not proceed without fees or pay the filing fee.
Peter John Arendas’s ability to pursue this action without paying the filing fee; the action was dismissed without prejudice, allowing a new paid complaint.
What happened
In Arendas v. Altizer, Peter John Arendas filed a case without a lawyer seeking damages for alleged wrongdoing by Keith Altizer, described as an Arcata Police Department supervising officer.
The court denied Arendas’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee because he had at least three prior prisoner cases dismissed for qualifying reasons and did not allege an imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court gave him 28 days to explain why that rule should not apply or pay the $400 filing fee, but he did neither in this case.
Judge Breyer ordered the action dismissed without prejudice to filing a new complaint after paying the fee. The clerk was directed to close the case and terminate pending motions as moot.
The detailed version
- Arendas v. Altizer · No. 3:20-cv-02702
- Charles Breyer
- June 15, 2020
Background
Peter John Arendas filed this prisoner action without a lawyer and sought damages for alleged wrongdoing by Keith Altizer, whom the opinion describes as an Arcata Police Department supervising officer. Arendas asked to proceed without paying the filing fee.
Proceeding Without the Filing Fee
On April 24, 2020, the court denied Arendas’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That statute bars a prisoner from proceeding without paying the fee when the prisoner has had three or more prior prisoner actions dismissed because they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim, unless the prisoner was facing an imminent danger of serious physical injury when the action was filed.
The court concluded that Arendas had three or more qualifying prior dismissals and did not meet the imminent-danger exception. Under circuit law, the court gave him 28 days either to show why § 1915(g) should not bar him from proceeding without paying the fee 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 did not respond in this case. In a related case against Altizer that he voluntarily dismissed, he argued that dismissals from 2010 should not count because he was then inexperienced with the law and that the three-strikes rule applied only to dismissals for failure to state a claim. The court rejected those arguments, explaining that the statute expressly counts dismissals for failure to state a claim and that a party’s lack of legal knowledge or self-represented status does not change whether a dismissal counts as a strike.
Disposition
The court held that § 1915(g) barred Arendas from proceeding without paying the filing fee. It dismissed the action without prejudice to bringing it in a new paid complaint. The clerk was instructed to close the file and terminate all pending motions as moot. Judge Charles R. Breyer signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.