Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Krzysztof F. Wolinski, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brought this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against numerous California prison officials, alleging retaliation, denial of due process, and excessive force. The operative Third Amended Complaint was found timely on October 15, 2025, and after screening, the district judge adopted findings and recommendations in full on April 17, 2026, allowing claims to proceed against several defendants while dismissing the excessive force claim against Defendant Tennis without further leave to amend. The surviving claims include allegations that correctional officers forged rules violation reports, suppressed grievances, and assaulted Wolinski, and that supervisory officials failed to intervene.
Defendants filed an unopposed motion to revoke Wolinski's in forma pauperis status under the Prison Litigation Reform Act's three-strikes provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which bars a prisoner from proceeding IFP if he has had three or more prior actions dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim, unless he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time of filing. Defendants also requested judicial notice of prior court decisions establishing Wolinski's strikes and moved to stay the action and pending deadlines until the IFP motion was resolved. The magistrate judge considered the motion unopposed because Wolinski failed to respond.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge recommends granting the motion to revoke IFP status. The court took judicial notice of its own records and found that Wolinski had been recognized as a three-striker in a prior case, Wolinski v. Allison, and had filed at least five prior meritless or frivolous prisoner complaints. Because Wolinski failed to respond to the motion and did not properly allege imminent danger, the PLRA dictated that he could no longer proceed in forma pauperis.
On the imminent danger exception, the court agreed with defendants that the operative complaint alleged only a single May 2018 assault by Defendant Harms, with no continuing threat of serious physical injury. Critically, CDCR records showed Harms separated from the department in June 2019, before Wolinski filed his initial complaint in October 2019 and more than five years before the operative complaint in February 2025. The court found Wolinski could not credibly claim imminent danger from someone no longer employed at his facility. The magistrate judge also recommends granting the request for judicial notice and granting the motion to stay, with the time to respond to the amended complaint extended to a date following resolution of the motion to revoke IFP status, such deadline to be set by the assigned magistrate judge.
Key Takeaways
- A prisoner's prior designation as a three-striker in another federal case can support revocation of IFP status in a later action, and courts may take judicial notice of their own records and prior strike determinations under Federal Rule of Evidence 201.
- The imminent danger exception to the PLRA's three-strikes rule requires a credible threat existing at the time the complaint is filed; a past assault by a defendant who has since left prison employment does not satisfy the exception.
- An unopposed motion to revoke IFP status, combined with a prisoner's failure to respond or properly allege imminent danger, will result in revocation under the PLRA.
- The magistrate judge recommends granting the stay itself and extending defendants' response deadlines to a date following resolution of the motion to revoke IFP status, with the deadline to be set by the assigned magistrate judge.
- These findings and recommendations are subject to objection within 14 days before the assigned district judge, and failure to object may waive the right to appeal.
Why It Matters
This recommendation illustrates the practical consequences of the PLRA's three-strikes provision for serial prisoner litigants: once a prisoner has been found to have three strikes, defendants can move to revoke IFP status in subsequent cases, and courts will judicially notice prior determinations rather than re-examine each strike. The decision also reinforces that the imminent danger exception is narrowly construed and cannot be based on stale allegations involving defendants who no longer work at the prison.
If adopted, the recommendation will require Wolinski to pay the full filing fee to continue his civil rights action, and the recommended stay will pause defendants' obligation to respond to the amended complaint until the motion to revoke IFP status is resolved, effectively conditioning further proceedings on his fee status.