Harnden v. Perez

Background

Jeffrey S. Harnden, an incarcerated person representing himself, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He applied for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning permission to bring the case without paying the filing fee upfront. He also filed a motion asking the court to reconsider prior orders under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 and 60.

Harnden’s amended complaint described allegations involving prison safety, alleged assaults, the recording of his enemies, medical treatment, mail, grievances, parole proceedings, and earlier criminal and civil cases. The court said the amended complaint was difficult to follow but considered the allegations relevant to whether Harnden qualified for the imminent-danger exception to the prisoner-filing restrictions.

Reconsideration Request

The court denied the motion for reconsideration as moot. Rules 59 and 60 apply after a judgment has been entered, and no judgment had yet been entered in this case. The court also noted that the motion appeared to seek reconsideration of orders from a separate case. To the extent Harnden sought reconsideration of orders entered in this case, the court denied that request because he had not obtained the required permission to file such a motion before judgment under the Northern District of California’s local rules.

Prisoner-Filing Restrictions

The Prison Litigation Reform Act generally prevents a prisoner from proceeding without paying the filing fee when the prisoner has had three or more prior cases dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim. An exception applies if the prisoner was under an imminent danger of serious physical injury when the action was filed.

The court found that Harnden had at least three qualifying prior dismissals and had not disputed that fact. It considered his allegations that prison officials failed to record his enemies and that he remained at risk of assault. The court found that Harnden provided some details about certain assaults but provided no details about others, including who committed them, how they occurred, or how people at different prisons could have coordinated them. The court also noted that prison officials were taking measures to separate him from enemies and escort him to and from group activities.

The court further found that it was unclear whether the alleged danger had the required connection to claims involving stolen mail, denial of parole, and the 1993 criminal case. It concluded that Harnden’s allegation of ongoing imminent danger when he filed the action was conclusory and overly speculative. Because he had three qualifying dismissals and had not plausibly shown imminent danger, the court denied leave to proceed without prepaying the filing fee.

Disposition

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. ordered that Harnden’s motion for reconsideration be denied as moot and that his application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis be denied under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Harnden could proceed only by paying the full $402 filing and administrative fee within 28 days of the order. The court stated that if the fee was not paid by then, it would dismiss the action without prejudice to refiling after payment. The order terminated Docket Nos. 11 and 21.