Grimes v. Vitamin Shoppe

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 JEROME L. GRIMES, Case No.: 3:25-cv-2017-RBM-MSB 9 ORDER: Plaintiff, 10 v. (1) DENYING MOTION TO 11 PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS VITAMIN SHOPPE, Orange, CA; 12 AS BARRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) VITAMIN SHOPPE, Moreno Valley, CA; [Doc. 2] AND 13 VITAMIN SHOPPE, Rancho Cucamonga, CA; VITAMIN SHOPPE, Covina, CA, 14 (2) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR 15 Defendants. FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEE 16 REQUIRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) 17 18 I. INTRODUCTION 19 Plaintiff, Jerome L. Grimes, a detainee at Larry D. Smith Correctional Facility in 20 Riverside County, has filed a pro se Complaint and a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 21 (“IFP”). (Docs. 1–2.) In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges acts of retaliation, fraud and 22 negligence by Defendants. (See Doc. 1.) For the reasons discussed below, the Court denies 23 Plaintiff’s IFP motion and dismisses the case without prejudice. 24 II. IFP MOTION 25 A. Standard of Review 26 “All persons, not just prisoners, may seek IFP status.” Moore v. Maricopa County 27 Sheriff’s Office, 657 F.3d 890, 892 (9th Cir. 2011). Prisoners like Grimes, however, “face 28 an additional hurdle.” Id. 1 In addition to requiring prisoners to “pay the full amount of a filing fee,” in “monthly 2 installments” or “increments” as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3)(b), the Prison 3 Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) amended section 1915 to preclude the privilege to 4 proceed IFP in cases where the prisoner: 5 . . . has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was 6 dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim 7 upon which relief can be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. 8 9 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). “This subdivision is commonly known as the ‘three strikes’ 10 provision.” Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1116 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005). “Pursuant to 11 § 1915(g), a prisoner with three strikes or more cannot proceed IFP.” Id.; see also Andrews 12 v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2007) (hereafter “Cervantes”) (stating that 13 under the PLRA, “[p]risoners who have repeatedly brought unsuccessful suits may entirely 14 be barred from IFP status under the three strikes rule[.]”). The objective of the PLRA is to 15 further “the congressional goal of reducing frivolous prisoner litigation in federal court.” 16 Tierney v. Kupers, 128 F.3d 1310, 1312 (9th Cir. 1997). 17 “Strikes are prior cases or appeals, brought while the plaintiff was a prisoner, which 18 were dismissed on the ground that they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim,” 19 Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1116 n.1 (internal quotations omitted), “even if the district court 20 styles such dismissal as a denial of the prisoner’s application to file the action without 21 prepayment of the full filing fee.” O’Neal v. Price, 531 F.3d 1146, 1153 (9th Cir. 2008). 22 When courts “review a dismissal to determine whether it counts as a strike, the style of the 23 dismissal or the procedural posture is immaterial. Instead, the central question is whether 24 the dismissal ‘rang the PLRA bells of frivolous, malicious, or failure to state a claim.’” El- 25 Shaddai v. Zamora, 833 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Blakely v. Wards, 738 26 F.3d 607, 615 (4th Cir. 2013)). 27 Once a prisoner has accumulated three strikes, section 1915(g) prohibits his pursuit 28 of any subsequent IFP civil action or appeal in federal court unless he “makes a plausible 1 allegation that [he] faced ‘imminent danger of serious physical injury’ at the time of filing.” 2 Cervantes, 493 F.3d at 1051‒52 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)). “[T]he PLRA [also] 3 requires a nexus between [any] alleged imminent danger and the violations of law alleged 4 in the prisoner’s complaint.” Ray v. Lara, 31 F.4th 692, 700 (9th Cir. 2022). Thus, to 5 qualify for an exception, “a three-strikes prisoner must allege imminent danger of serious 6 physical injury that is both fairly traceable to unlawful conduct alleged in his complaint 7 and redressable by the court.” Id. at 701. 8 B. Discussion 9 Grimes’s allegatio ns are far from clear, but as best the Court can decipher, he seeks 10 to hold private businesses liable for “fraud to do food chain poison” and negligence. See 11 (Doc. 1. at 1.) However, Grimes does not include any “plausible allegations” to suggest 12 he “faced ‘imminent danger of serious physical injury’ at the time of filing.” Cervantes, 13 493 F.3d at 1055 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)). 14 Courts “‘may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the 15 federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.’” 16 Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1225 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 17 285 F.3d 801, 803 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002)); see also United States ex rel. Robinson Rancheria 18 Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992). Therefore, this Court 19 takes judicial notice of federal docket proceedings available on PACER and finds that 20 Plaintiff Jerome L. Grimes, currently identified as Douglas County Jail Inmate 21 #202528807, has filed over 600 civil actions in multiple federal district courts across the 22 country dating back to 1986.1 23 These dockets show Grimes has been in and out of state and local custody over the 24 course of more than three decades, and due to his vexatiousness, has been denied leave to 25 proceed IFP while incarcerated pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) in the Northern District of 26 27 1 See https://pcl.uscourts.gov/pcl/pages/search/results/parties.jsf?sid=ae66c80e47444979 28 8769281006232978 (last visited August 7, 2025). 1 California, Western District of Louisiana, Eastern District of Kentucky, Middle and 2 Northern Districts of Florida, the District of Maryland, and this district. See e.g., Grimes 3 v. Wan, et al., Civil Case No. 07-cv-1726-CW (PR), 2007 WL 1988530, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 4 July 3, 2007) (“On May 18, 2000, this Court informed Plaintiff that while he is a prisoner, 5 he generally is ineligible to proceed [IFP] in federal court under the ‘three-strikes’ 6 provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).”) (citing Grimes v. Oakland Police Dep’t, C 00-1100 7 CW (Order Dismissing Complaint, 5/18/00)); Grimes v. Roman, et al., Civil Case No. 17- 8 cv-03288-JSW (N.D. Cal. July 19, 2017) (Doc. 4) (noting that “[i]n 2003 alone, [Grimes’s] 9 failure to comply [with court orders granting leave to pay the full filing fee and to state 10 cognizable claims for relief] resulted in the dismissal of approximately thirty-six actions 11 under § 1915(g).”); Grimes v. Lewis, et al., Civil Case No. 5:12-cv-03159-EEF-MLH 12 (W.D. La. March 13, 2013) (Doc. 16 at 1) (“Court records show that [Grimes] has filed 13 more tha[n] 350 complaints and appeals. Three or more of them have been dismissed as 14 frivolous.”); Grimes v. Medlock, et al., Civil Case No. 6:15-cv-00140-DCR (E.D. Ky. Sept. 15 16, 2015) (“[T]he federal judiciary’s on-line database indicates that ‘Jerome L. Grimes’ 16 has filed almost 500 civil rights suits in the federal court system, mostly in California.”) 17 (Doc. 8 at 3); Grimes v. Kelly, Civil Case No. 6:15-cv-02073-PGB-DAB (M.D. Fla. Dec. 18 16, 2015) (Doc. 5 at 2) (“A review of PACER confirms that [Grimes] has filed hundreds 19 of actions in several district courts in the United States and has had three of more cases 20 dismissed for failure to state a claim or as frivolous.”); Grimes v. Files, et al., Civil Case 21 No. 3:17-cv-00464-RV-CJK (N.D. Fla. April 12, 2018) (adopting Report & 22 Recommendation denying IFP and dismissing civil action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)) 23 (Doc. 10); Grimes v. Engram, et al., Civil Case No. 8:17-cv-01480-PX (D. Md. June 5, 24 2017) (denying IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), noting Grimes’s eight pending 25 citations related to traffic violations in Montgomery County, Maryland in 2016, and his 26 filing of “hundreds of cases in the federal courts.”) (Doc. 6 at 2); Grimes v. Enter. Rent-a- 27 Car Co. of Los Angeles, LLC, No. 22-cv-00657-RSH-KSC, 2022 WL 3109570, at *3 (S.D. 28 Cal. Aug. 4, 2022) (denying IFP pursuant to § 1915(g), dismissing case and noting Grimes 1 had previously filed more than 600 civil actions in federal courts). 2 Thus, this Court finds that while incarcerated Plaintiff Jerome L. Grimes has had far 3 more than three prior civil actions dismissed on the grounds that they were frivolous, 4 malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Some specific 5 examples of “strikes” filed and dismissed while Grimes was in custody of the California 6 Medical Facility in Vacaville, California and the Orange County Corrections Department 7 in Orlando, Florida are: 8 (1) Grimes v. Cal. Dep’t of Corrs., et al., Civil Case No. 2:00-cv-00668-WBS- 9 JFM (E.D. Cal. May 2, 2000) (Order granting IFP and dismissing complaint sua sponte 10 with leave to amend for “fail[ing] to state a cognizable claim for relief” pursuant to 28 11 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)) (Doc. 5); id., (E.D. Cal. June 22, 2000) (Findings and 12 Recommendations [“F&Rs”] to dismiss civil action for failure to amend) (Doc. 7); id., 13 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2000 Order adopting F&Rs and dismissing action) (Doc. 9);2 14 (2) Grimes v. CDC-CMF/Dep’t of Mental Health, et al., Civil Case No. 2:00-cv- 15 00781-DFL-DAD (E.D. Cal. April 24, 2000) (F&R granting IFP and to dismiss complaint 16 sua sponte pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A as frivolous and for failing to state a claim) (Doc. 17 4); id., (E.D. Cal. June 22, 2000) (F&Rs to dismiss civil action for failure to amend) (Doc. 18 6); id. (E.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2000) (Order adopting F&Rs and dismissing action) (Doc. 7); 19 (3) Grimes v. Kelly, Civil Case No. 6:15-cv-01955-RBD-GJK (M.D. Fla. Nov. 20 30, 2015) (Order denying IFP and dismissing complaint requesting Defendant police 21 officer be subject to random drug and lie detector tests and to be “prosecuted paramilitarily” 22 “for fai[ing] to provide a … claim for relief.”) (Doc. 3); 23 (4) Grimes v. Williams, et al., Civil Case No. 1:15-cv-03848-JKB (D. Md. Dec. 24 25 26 2 See Harris v. Mangum, 863 F.3d 1133, 1143 (9th Cir. 2017) (“[W]hen (1) a district court dismisses a complaint on the ground that it fails to state a claim, (2) the court grants leave 27 to amend, and (3) the plaintiff then fails to file an amended complaint, the dismissal counts 28 as a strike under § 1915(g).”). 1 2015) (Memorandum and Order granting IFP and dismissing complaint for failing to 2 ||state a claim for relief) (Docs. 3, 4); and 3 (5) Grimes v. Tate, et al., Civil Case No. 1:15-cv-03849-JKB (D. Md. Dec. 23, 4 ||2015) (Memorandum and Order granting IFP and dismissing complaint for failing to state 5 |}a claim for relief) (ECF Nos. 3, 4). 6 Accordingly, because Grimes has, while incarcerated, accumulated far more than 7 || the three “strikes” permitted by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and he fails to make any “plausible 8 allegations” that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed 9 || his Complaint, he is not entitled to the privilege of proceeding IFP in this civil action. See 10 || Cervantes, 493 F.3d at 1055; Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1180 (9th Cir. 1999) 11 || finding that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) “does not prevent all prisoners from accessing the courts; 12 only precludes prisoners with a history of abusing the legal system from continuing to 13 abuse it while enjoying IFP status”); see also Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1231 14 || (9th Cir. 1984) (‘[C]ourt permission to proceed IFP is itself a matter of privilege and not 15 || right.”). 16 Hit. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 17 For the reasons discussed above, the Court DENIES Grimes’s Motion to Proceed 18 (Doc. 2) as barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); DISMISSES this civil action without 19 || prejudice based on Grimes’s failure to pay the full statutory and administrative $402 civil 20 || filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal from this Order 21 || would be frivolous and not taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); and 22 || DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to close the case. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 || Dated: November 13, 2025 Fe Le ; ? L □ 25 HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO 26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28 AAE ANID DDAT □□□□