Harnden v. Perez

Background

Jeffrey S. Harnden, an inmate at California Medical Facility, filed this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He asked to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the filing fee at the start of the case. He also asked for more time to provide proof of his indigent status.

The complaint alleged, among other things, that prison officials had interfered with privileged mail during Harnden’s 1993 criminal prosecution; that prosecutors engaged in misconduct; that other inmates had attacked him; that he was denied medical care after an attack; and that prison officials interfered with his access to the courts. The court described the complaint as rambling and difficult to follow and said it was unclear whether Harnden sought to overturn his conviction or merely wanted the court to avoid using the word “conviction.”

Three-strikes rule

The Prison Litigation Reform Act generally prevents an incarcerated person from proceeding without paying the filing fee if the person has brought at least three earlier federal actions that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim. An exception applies if the person plausibly alleges that he was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the new case.

The court reviewed the available records of Harnden’s earlier litigation. Although some records were no longer available, the court found at least three qualifying dismissals. It therefore concluded that Harnden was barred from proceeding without paying the filing fee unless he established that the immediate-danger exception applied.

Immediate-danger exception

Harnden alleged that he had been attacked by inmates in nearly every California federal district and that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation had not adequately separated him from his enemies. He also referred to earlier rulings that had found no immediate danger and alleged that he was later attacked.

The court found these allegations insufficient. It stated that Harnden did not explain specifically why events from about 20 years earlier would happen again and did not identify a specific danger from a specific inmate at California Medical Facility. The court therefore concluded that his allegations did not plausibly show an immediate risk of serious physical injury.

Ruling

The court did not yet deny Harnden’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee. Instead, it ordered him to show cause in writing within 28 days why the request should not be denied under the three-strikes provision. Harnden could alternatively pay the full $402 filing fee. The order states that failure to respond as required would result in dismissal of the action without further notice for failure to comply with a court order.

The court denied as moot Harnden’s request for an extension of time to provide proof of indigence. It explained that his completed fee-waiver application had already been received on January 3, 2022, and that he did not need to submit additional proof of indigence.