Hicks v. Yeh

Background

Michael J. Hicks, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee. Hicks acknowledged that he is subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s three-strikes provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That provision generally prevents a prisoner with three qualifying prior dismissals from proceeding without paying the filing fee unless the prisoner was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed.

Hicks’s amended complaint asserted medical-care claims based on events at multiple prisons in all four federal court districts in California. The court stated that only one defendant and one claim concerned events in the Northern District of California. The court dismissed without prejudice the claims and defendants concerning the other districts, allowing Hicks to pursue those matters in those districts.

Issues identified by the court

The court directed Hicks to show cause why his request to proceed without paying the filing fee should not be denied under the three-strikes rule. The court explained that the imminent-danger exception requires a connection between the alleged imminent physical danger and the unlawful conduct asserted in the complaint, and that a favorable court ruling must be capable of addressing that danger. Hicks had to explain why that exception applies. Alternatively, he could pay the full filing fee.

The court also questioned whether Hicks exhausted available prison grievance procedures for his remaining claim. Hicks was transferred to Salinas Valley State Prison on October 11, 2022, and alleged denial of medical care there after that date. But the appeal he identified was submitted on May 25, 2022, while he was incarcerated at a different prison. The court therefore ordered Hicks to show cause why the remaining case should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

Rulings and next steps

The court granted Hicks’s motion to amend and reviewed the amended complaint. It ordered Hicks to show cause within 28 days why the action should not be treated as barred by the three-strikes rule, why his application to proceed without paying the filing fee should not be denied, and why the case should not be dismissed without prejudice as unexhausted. The court did not state in this order that it had already denied the fee application or dismissed the remaining Northern District claim.

The court also stated that Hicks is responsible for prosecuting the case, keeping the court informed of address changes, and complying with court orders on time. It warned that failure to do so may result in dismissal for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Judge—the court—issued the order on January 11, 2023.