Stuckey v. Sturdevant

Background

Andre Kenneth Stuckey, a state prisoner incarcerated at Pelican Bay State Prison, filed this civil-rights action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Pelican Bay correctional officer C. Sturdevant. Stuckey alleged that Sturdevant discriminated against him because of his race and retaliated against him after he filed a prison appeal. He alleged that Sturdevant used racial slurs, refused to release him to attend a college class and a law-library appointment, and told him to include those events in another prison appeal.

The court had previously allowed Stuckey to proceed without paying the filing fee and ordered service on Sturdevant. The case was later stayed while it was referred to a prisoner mediation program. After the parties did not reach an agreement, the court lifted the stay and reopened the case.

Three-strikes rule

Sturdevant asked the court to revoke Stuckey’s fee-free status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), commonly called the three-strikes rule. That rule generally prevents a prisoner from proceeding without prepaying the filing fee after three earlier federal cases or appeals were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim, unless the prisoner plausibly alleges an imminent danger of serious physical injury.

The court granted Sturdevant’s request for judicial notice, meaning it agreed to consider the submitted records from other court proceedings. The court reviewed three earlier dismissals: two cases in the Central District of California, Nos. 2:12-cv-06875 and 2:12-cv-08438, and an earlier Northern District of California case, No. 19-cv-03688. It found that the first two dismissals followed denials of fee-free status because the complaints were frivolous, and that the third case was dismissed as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. The court also noted that the appeal from the third dismissal was dismissed as frivolous. It concluded that all three dismissals qualified as strikes under Section 1915(g).

Imminent-danger exception

The court considered whether Stuckey qualified for the exception allowing a prisoner with three strikes to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. The relevant question was whether he plausibly alleged an ongoing risk of serious physical injury on March 18, 2020, when he filed this action. The court found that he did not. The complaint described alleged racial discrimination occurring in April and July 2019 and did not allege an imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed.

Order

The court reopened the case and lifted the stay. It directed Stuckey to file a written response within 28 days explaining why his fee-free status should not be revoked and why the action should not be dismissed under Section 1915(g). The court stated that Stuckey could avoid dismissal by paying the $350 filing fee. It further stated that failing to respond on time or failing to pay the full fee would result in dismissal without further notice. The order did not itself revoke Stuckey’s fee-free status or dismiss the action.