Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00825/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00825-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1 

3:19-cv-00825-MMA-KSC 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ROBERT HATCHER, 

Booking #19705701, 

Plaintiff,

vs. 

Dr. FREEDLAND; 

Dr. LEON; 

SNR SERINA, 

Defendants.

 Case No.: 3:19-cv-00825-MMA-KSC 

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

AND FOR LEGAL FUNDS 

AS BARRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); 

[Doc. Nos. 2, 3] 

DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION FOR 

FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEE 

REQUIRED BY 

28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) 

Plaintiff, Robert Hatcher, while in custody at the San Diego Central Jail (“SDCJ”), 

filed a 3-page civil rights Complaint (“Compl.”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 22, 

2019. See Compl., Doc. No. 1. Plaintiff’s pleading is sparse, but it appears he seeks to sue 

two doctors and a SDCJ nurse for exhibiting “bias and prejudice against him” as a Native 

American. Id. at 2. Plaintiff did not pay the civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) 

at the time he filed his Complaint; instead, he filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

(“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), together with a single-page document captioned 

Case 3:19-cv-00825-MMA-KSC Document 4 Filed 05/31/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2 

3:19-cv-00825-MMA-KSC 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

as a “Request for Legal Funds for Phone Prepaid Card, Legal Suppl[ies] that the Jail do[es] 

Not Have Also an Investigator for Interviews, Picture Takin[g], Also for Legal Runner 

Trips.” See Doc. No. 3. 

I. Motion to Proceed IFP

 A. Standard of Review 

 “All persons, not just prisoners, may seek IFP status.” Moore v. Maricopa County 

Sheriff’s Office, 657 F.3d 890, 892 (9th Cir. 2011). Prisoners like Plaintiff, however, “face 

an additional hurdle.” Id. 

In addition to requiring prisoners to “pay the full amount of a filing fee,” in “monthly 

installments” or “increments” as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3)(b), the Prison 

Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) amended section 1915 to preclude the privilege to 

proceed IFP in cases where the prisoner: 

. . . 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 

dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim 

upon which relief can be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent 

danger of serious physical injury. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). “This subdivision is commonly known as the ‘three strikes’ 

provision.” Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1116 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005). “Pursuant to 

§ 1915(g), a prisoner with three strikes or more cannot proceed IFP.” Id.; see also Andrews 

v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2007) (hereafter “Cervantes”) (under the 

PLRA, “[p]risoners who have repeatedly brought unsuccessful suits may entirely be barred 

from IFP status under the three strikes rule[.]”). The objective of the PLRA is to further 

“the congressional goal of reducing frivolous prisoner litigation in federal court.” Tierney 

v. Kupers, 128 F.3d 1310, 1312 (9th Cir. 1997). 

 “Strikes are prior cases or appeals, brought while the plaintiff was a prisoner, which 

were dismissed on the ground that they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim,” 

Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1116 n.1 (internal quotations omitted), “even if the district court 

styles such dismissal as a denial of the prisoner’s application to file the action without 

Case 3:19-cv-00825-MMA-KSC Document 4 Filed 05/31/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3 

3:19-cv-00825-MMA-KSC 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

prepayment of the full filing fee.” O’Neal v. Price, 531 F.3d 1146, 1153 (9th Cir. 2008). 

When courts “review a dismissal to determine whether it counts as a strike, the style of the 

dismissal or the procedural posture is immaterial. Instead, the central question is whether 

the dismissal ‘rang the PLRA bells of frivolous, malicious, or failure to state a claim.’” ElShaddai v. Zamora, 833 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Blakely v. Wards, 738 

F.3d 607, 615 (4th Cir. 2013)).

Once a prisoner has accumulated three strikes, section 1915(g) prohibits his pursuit 

of any subsequent IFP civil action or appeal in federal court unless he faces “imminent 

danger of serious physical injury.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Cervantes, 493 F.3d at 1051-

52 (noting § 1915(g)’s exception for IFP complaints which “make[] a plausible allegation 

that the prisoner faced ‘imminent danger of serious physical injury’ at the time of filing.”). 

B. Discussion 

 Plaintiff’s Complaint does not currently allege any basis for § 1983 liability at all, 

let alone assert “plausible allegations” to suggest he “faced ‘imminent danger of serious 

physical injury’ at the time of filing.” Cervantes, 493 F.3d at 1055 (quoting 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(g)). Instead, as described above, Plaintiff summarily claims two SDCJ doctors and 

a nurse are discriminating against him based on his ethnicity. See Compl., Doc. No. 1 at 

2. 

And while Defendants typically carry the initial burden to produce evidence 

demonstrating a prisoner is not entitled to proceed IFP, Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1119, “in 

some instances, the district court docket may be sufficient to show that a prior dismissal 

satisfies at least one on the criteria under § 1915(g) and therefore counts as a strike.” Id.

at 1120. That is the case here. 

A court may take judicial notice of its own records, see Molus v. Swan, Civil Case 

No. 3:05-cv-00452-MMA-WMc, 2009 WL 160937, *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2009) (citing 

United States v. Author Services, 804 F.2d 1520, 1523 (9th Cir. 1986)); Gerritsen v. 

Warner Bros. Entm’t Inc., 112 F. Supp. 3d 1011, 1034 (C.D. Cal. 2015), and “‘may take 

notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial system, 

Case 3:19-cv-00825-MMA-KSC Document 4 Filed 05/31/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4 

3:19-cv-00825-MMA-KSC 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.’” Bias v. Moynihan, 508 

F.3d 1212, 1225 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 803 n.2 

(9th Cir. 2002)); see also United States ex rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. 

Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992). 

Therefore, this Court takes judicial notice of its own records and finds that Plaintiff 

Robert Hatcher, currently identified as San Diego County Sheriff’s Department Inmate 

Booking No. 19705701, and while incarcerated, has had five prior civil actions or appeals 

dismissed on the grounds that they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted. They are: 

1) Hatcher v. Aurthur, et al., Civil Case No. 3:18-cv-00491-LAB-KSC 

(S.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2018) (Order Denying Motion to Proceed IFP and 

Dismissing Civil Action as Frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)) (Doc. No. 3) (strike one); 

2) Hatcher v. Monahan, Civil Case No. 3:18-cv-00492-CAB-KSC (S.D. 

Cal. April 5, 2018) (Order Granting Motions to Proceed IFP and Dismissing 

Complaint for Failing to State a Claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and 

§ 1915A(b)) (Doc. No. 12); (S. D. Cal., June 14, 2018) (Order Dismissing 

Civil Action for Failing to State a Claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) 

and § 1915A(b) and for Failing to Prosecute in Compliance with Court Order 

requiring Amendment)) (Doc. No. 17) (strike two);1

3) Hatcher v. Dr. Blake, et al., Civil Case No. 3:18-cv-00561-MMAMDD (S.D. Cal. May 17, 2018) (Order Granting Motion to Proceed IFP and 

Dismissing Complaint for Failing to State a Claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b)) (Doc. No. 8); (S.D. Cal. July 17, 2018) (Order 

Dismissing Civil Action for Failing to State a Claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A and for Failing to Prosecute in Compliance with 

Court Order requiring Amendment)) (Doc. No. 10) (strike three); 

4) Hatcher v. Aurthur, et al., Civil Case No. 3:19-cv-00615-LAB-WVG 

                                               

1

 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, and (2) the court grants 

leave to amend, and (3) the plaintiff then fails to file an amended complaint, the dismissal 

counts as a strike under § 1915(g).”). 

Case 3:19-cv-00825-MMA-KSC Document 4 Filed 05/31/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5 

3:19-cv-00825-MMA-KSC 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(S.D. Cal. May 21, 2019) (Order Denying Motions to Proceed IFP and for 

Legal Funds as barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and Dismissing Civil Action 

for Failing to Pay Filing Fee and as Frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)) (Doc. No. 10) (strike four); and 

5) Hatcher v. Ball, et al., Civil Case No. 3:19-cv-00721-MMA-LL (S.D. 

Cal. May 22, 2019) (Order Dismissing Civil Action for Failure to Pay Filing 

Fees required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) and as Frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(b)(1)) (Doc. No. 4) (strike five). 

Accordingly, because Plaintiff has, while incarcerated, accumulated more than three 

“strikes” pursuant to § 1915(g), and he fails to make a “plausible allegation” that he faced 

imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed his Complaint, he is not 

entitled to the privilege of proceeding IFP in this action. See Cervantes, 493 F.3d at 1055; 

Rodriguez, 169 F.3d at 1180 (finding that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) “does not prevent all 

prisoners from accessing the courts; it only precludes prisoners with a history of abusing 

the legal system from continuing to abuse it while enjoying IFP status”); see also Franklin 

v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1231 (9th Cir. 1984) (“[C]ourt permission to proceed IFP is 

itself a matter of privilege and not right.”). 

III. Conclusion and Order

 For the reasons explained, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motions to Proceed IFP 

(Doc. No. 2) and for Legal Funds (Doc. No. 3) as barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); 

DISMISSES this civil action sua sponte for failing to prepay the $400 civil and 

administrative filing fees required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal 

would not be taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); and DIRECTS the 

Clerk of Court to enter a judgment of dismissal and close the case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE: May 31, 2019 _______________________________________ 

 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 

 United States District Judge 

 

Case 3:19-cv-00825-MMA-KSC Document 4 Filed 05/31/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5