Stuckey v. People Republic of China
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:20-cv-07344
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Stuckey v. People[’s] Republic of China, Judge Rogers reopened the case, vacated prior orders, and required a response before possible fee-status denial and dismissal.
Andre Kenneth Stuckey, particularly his ability to proceed without paying the filing fee; the action was reopened, but he was required to respond to the possible application of the three-strikes rule.
What happened
In Stuckey v. People[’s] Republic of China, Andre Kenneth Stuckey, a prisoner representing himself, asked to proceed without paying the filing fee and sought to bring a class action related to the coronavirus pandemic. The court had previously dismissed the case because he had not completed his fee application and had dismissed the additional inmate plaintiffs without prejudice.
The court reopened the case after Stuckey completed his fee application. It identified three earlier dismissals that might count under the prisoner “three strikes” rule, which can prevent a prisoner from proceeding without paying the full filing fee unless he faces an imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court stated that Stuckey did not appear to meet that exception.
Judge Rogers granted the motion to reopen, vacated the earlier judgment and dismissal order, and ordered Stuckey to explain within 28 days why his fee-free status should not be denied and the case dismissed. The court also denied as moot his newly filed request to certify a class; it did not yet deny his fee-free status or dismiss the case.
The detailed version
- Stuckey v. People Republic of China · No. 4:20-cv-07344
- Yvonne Rogers
- Mar. 1, 2021
Background
Andre Kenneth Stuckey, a state prisoner incarcerated at Pelican Bay State Prison, filed a complaint on behalf of himself and other inmates. He sought damages and equitable relief related to the coronavirus pandemic and attempted to represent all incarcerated inmates in California. He was representing himself.
The court had dismissed the action on December 15, 2020, because Stuckey had not completed his application to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the filing fee. Stuckey later completed that application and moved to reopen the case. The court had also previously denied class certification and dismissed the other named inmate plaintiffs without prejudice.
Three-strikes issue
The Prison Litigation Reform Act generally prevents a prisoner from proceeding without paying the full filing fee if the prisoner has had three or more earlier federal actions or appeals dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim. An exception applies when the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
The court identified three earlier dismissals that it believed could count as strikes under this rule: two cases from the Central District of California, docket numbers 2:12-cv-06875 and 2:12-cv-08438, and a civil-rights case from the Northern District of California, docket number 19-cv-03688. The court stated that the earlier dismissals had been reviewed in a related proceeding and could be counted. It also stated that Stuckey did not appear to be under imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed this action.
The order gave Stuckey notice and an opportunity to respond. It explained that he could avoid dismissal by paying the $350 filing fee, but that the court would continue reviewing his future requests to proceed without paying the filing fee while he remained incarcerated.
Rulings
The court GRANTED Stuckey’s motion to reopen and ordered the Clerk to reopen the file. It VACATED the prior judgment and order of dismissal.
The court ordered Stuckey to show cause in writing within 28 days why his status allowing him to proceed without paying the filing fee should not be denied and why the action should not be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The order states that failure to respond on time or pay the full filing fee will result in dismissal without further notice. The court did not, in this order, itself deny that status or dismiss the action.
The court also DENIED as moot Stuckey’s newly filed motion for class certification because class certification had already been denied in the earlier order. The order terminated the docket entries for the motion to reopen and the class-certification motion.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.