LoRusso v. Chevron Corporation
- Jon Tigar
- 4:22-cv-03837
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In LoRusso v. Chevron, Judge Tigar denied reconsideration and dismissed the action without prejudice because LoRusso did not pay the filing fee.
Michael Anthony LoRusso’s case was dismissed without prejudice; Chevron Corporation received judgment in its favor, and the case was closed.
What happened
In LoRusso v. Chevron Corporation, Michael Anthony LoRusso brought a self-represented civil-rights case against Chevron Corporation. The court found that his complaint did not state any legal causes of action.
The court had denied LoRusso permission to proceed without paying the filing fee because he had at least three prior cases dismissed for qualifying reasons and did not allege that Chevron posed an immediate danger of serious physical injury. His request for reconsideration focused on alleged conduct by Florida officials instead.
The court denied the reconsideration request and dismissed the action without prejudice because LoRusso did not pay the $402 filing and administrative fee. Judge Tigar directed the Clerk to enter judgment for Chevron, close the case, and terminate pending motions as moot.
The detailed version
- LoRusso v. Chevron Corporation · No. 4:22-cv-03837
- Jon Tigar
- July 31, 2023
Background
Michael Anthony LoRusso filed this self-represented civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Chevron Corporation. The complaint alleged that Chevron harmed the American people by inflating gas prices, damaging the planet and environment, and hiding profits in “Big Tobacco.” The court stated that the complaint did not identify any legal causes of action.
LoRusso sought permission to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront, a status commonly called proceeding in forma pauperis. The court previously ordered him to explain why the three-strikes provision in 28 U.S.C. § 1915 should not apply. The court stated that various courts had barred him from filing civil suits under that statute and that at least three of his cases had been dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim. The court also found that the complaint did not allege that LoRusso faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury from Chevron.
Reconsideration request
LoRusso filed a pleading titled “Motion to Filed In Imminent Danger.” The court treated it as a request to reconsider the denial of permission to proceed without paying the fee. The pleading concerned accusations involving Florida Governor DeSantis, Florida’s school system, the COVID-19 epidemic, the 2022 presidential election, a state attorney, and the kidnapping of Michigan’s governor. It also alleged that Governor DeSantis retaliated against LoRusso by having him transferred to a mental-health unit where correctional officers killed an inmate.
The court denied the request for reconsideration. It explained that the exception to the three-strikes rule for an immediate danger requires a connection between the alleged danger and the prisoner’s complaint. LoRusso had not alleged an immediate danger of serious physical injury from Chevron.
Disposition
The court stated that the deadline for paying the filing fee had passed and that LoRusso had not paid it. It therefore dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee in full. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment in favor of Chevron and against LoRusso, terminate pending motions as moot, and close the case. The order terminated ECF No. 18.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.