LoRusso v. Chevron Corporation
- Jon Tigar
- 4:22-cv-03837
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In LoRusso v. Chevron, Judge Tigar ordered Michael Anthony LoRusso to explain why his fee waiver should not be denied under the prisoner three-strikes rule.
Michael Anthony LoRusso, whose request to proceed without prepaying the filing fee was placed under review; the order also threatens dismissal of his action if he does not respond within 28 days.
What happened
In LoRusso v. Chevron Corporation, Michael Anthony LoRusso, an incarcerated person representing himself, filed a civil-rights lawsuit against Chevron Corporation and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee. His complaint alleged that Chevron charged excessive gasoline prices, contributed to inflation and environmental harm, and threatened the public, but it did not identify a legal claim.
The court said LoRusso had at least three earlier cases dismissed as frivolous or for failing to state a claim. Under the federal prisoner three-strikes rule, a prisoner with three such dismissals generally cannot proceed without paying the filing fee unless the complaint plausibly alleges an immediate danger of serious physical injury. The court found no such allegation here.
Judge Jon S. Tigar did not yet deny the request or dismiss the case. He ordered LoRusso to explain within 28 days why the request should not be denied; the order says the case will be dismissed without further notice if he does not respond as required.
The detailed version
- LoRusso v. Chevron Corporation · No. 4:22-cv-03837
- Jon Tigar
- Jan. 13, 2023
Background
Michael Anthony LoRusso, an incarcerated plaintiff proceeding without a lawyer, filed this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Chevron Corporation. He asked to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without prepaying the court’s filing fee.
The complaint alleged that, after Russia invaded Ukraine, Chevron charged excessive gasoline prices. It claimed that the alleged price increases contributed to inflation and economically harmed Americans. It also alleged that Chevron was harming the environment, was motivated by profit, had hidden profits in “Big Tobacco,” and posed a danger to the public. The complaint did not identify any legal causes of action.
Three-strikes rule
The court explained that the Prison Litigation Reform Act generally prevents a prisoner from proceeding without prepaying the filing fee if the prisoner has had three or more prior federal actions dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim. The exception applies when the prisoner plausibly alleges that, when the complaint was filed, he faced an imminent danger of serious physical injury connected to the alleged violations.
The court reviewed three earlier cases and determined that each qualified as a strike: LoRusso v. McCabe, dismissed for failure to state a claim based on prosecutorial immunity; LoRusso v. Dillinger, dismissed for failure to state a claim involving allegations against public defenders; and LoRusso v. Upton, dismissed as frivolous in a challenge to a prison postage-stamp policy. The court also noted that other courts had previously found that LoRusso was barred by the three-strikes rule.
Application and order
The court found that LoRusso had not alleged an imminent danger of serious physical injury from Chevron and that the complaint’s allegations did not reasonably indicate such a danger. It therefore ordered him to show cause—meaning to explain why the requested filing-fee waiver should not be denied—within 28 days of the order.
Judge Jon S. Tigar did not deny the request in this order and did not dismiss the action at that time. The order states that failure to respond as required will result in dismissal of the action without further notice for failure to comply with a court order.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.