From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Saunders v. Cate

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Feb 14, 2013
508 F. App'x 647 (9th Cir. 2013)

Opinion

No. 12-15020 D.C. No. 1:06-cv-01567-AWI-GSA

02-14-2013

JASON SAUNDERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MATTHEW CATE; et al., Defendants - Appellees.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION


MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.


Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding

Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

Jason Saunders, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to pay a filing fee, after it denied Saunders in forma pauperis status on the ground that Saunders had "three strikes" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). We review de novo a district court's application of § 1915(g), Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2005), and we vacate and remand.

The district court improperly denied Saunders' request to proceed in forma pauperis because Saunders' proposed amended complaint made plausible allegations that he was "under imminent danger of serious physical injury" at the time he lodged the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); see also Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1055 (9th Cir. 2007) (an exception to the three-strikes rule applies "if the complaint makes a plausible allegation that the prisoner faced 'imminent danger of serious physical injury' at the time of filing"). Moreover, the district court erred in denying Saunders leave to file his proposed amended complaint because it was the first amended complaint in case number 1:06-cv-01567 and Saunders was entitled to amend his complaint once as a matter of right prior to a responsive pleading being filed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1); Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 214 (2007) ("PLRA's screening requirement does not—explicitly or implicitly—justify deviating from the usual procedural practice beyond the departures specified by the PLRA itself.").

Saunders' motion to stay the briefing in this appeal, submitted on December 10, 2012, is denied as moot.

VACATED and REMANDED.


Summaries of

Saunders v. Cate

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Feb 14, 2013
508 F. App'x 647 (9th Cir. 2013)
Case details for

Saunders v. Cate

Case Details

Full title:JASON SAUNDERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MATTHEW CATE; et al., Defendants…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Feb 14, 2013

Citations

508 F. App'x 647 (9th Cir. 2013)

Citing Cases

Ramey v. Franco

ver, other district courts have opined that the relevant time for determining imminent danger is the time the…

Adams v. Dahl

See Murrell v. Ryan, 821 Fed.Appx. 832, 833 (9th Cir. 2020) (affirming dismissal where plaintiff failed to…