Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00835/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00835-0/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

3:18-cv-00835-CAB-PCL

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

ERIC CHATMAN,

CDCR #BD-5474,

Plaintiff,

vs.

MAGALY CHATMAN,

Defendant.

Case No.: 3:18-cv-00835-CAB-PCL

ORDER:

1) DENYING MOTIONS TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

AND TO APPOINT COUNSEL AS 

BARRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) 

[ECF Nos. 2, 4]

AND

(2) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR 

FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEE 

REQUIRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a)

ERIC CHATMAN (“Plaintiff”), a prisoner incarcerated at Salinas Valley State 

Prison in Soledad, California, and proceeding pro se, has filed a has filed a seven-page 

Complaint in this Court alleging personal injury, general negligence, intentional tort, and 

wrongful death claims on a form provided by the Judicial Council of California, and 

against his ex-wife, Magaly Chatman. See Compl., ECF No. 1.

///

Case 3:18-cv-00835-CAB-PCL Document 5 Filed 06/04/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 7
2

3:18-cv-00835-CAB-PCL

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

Plaintiff claims his ex-wife was “very abusive,” owes him child and spousal 

support, and even tried to kill him and her boyfriend sometime between 1993 to 2018 in 

Las Vegas, Arizona, and California. Id. at 5-7. He seeks more than $100 million in 

“restitution” in order to “pay back movie star friends and others.” Id. at 5.

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

he submitted his Complaint; instead, he filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

(“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), followed by a Motion for Appointment of 

Counsel. See ECF Nos. 2, 4. 

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 ... additional hurdle[s].” Id.

Specifically, 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), Bruce v. Samuels, __ U.S. __, 136 S. Ct. 627, 629 (2016); Williams v. 

Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2015), the Prison Litigation Reform Act 

(“PLRA”) amended section 1915 to preclude the privilege to proceed IFP:

. . . if [a] 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 

Case 3:18-cv-00835-CAB-PCL Document 5 Filed 06/04/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 7
3

3:18-cv-00835-CAB-PCL

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

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). 

“[S]ection 1915(g)’s cap on prior dismissed claims applies to claims dismissed both 

before and after the statute’s effective date.” Id. at 1311.

“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 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.’” El-Shaddai 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, he is prohibited by section 1915(g) 

from pursuing any other IFP civil action or appeal in federal court unless he alleges he is 

facing “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. Application to Plaintiff

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Complaint and finds that is contains no 

“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’s claims that his ex-wife was abusive and tried to kill him on 

some unspecified occasion between 1993 and 2018, a period spanning more than two 

decades, and evidently before he was incarcerated, see Compl., ECF No. 1 at 6, 7, are not 

Case 3:18-cv-00835-CAB-PCL Document 5 Filed 06/04/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 7
4

3:18-cv-00835-CAB-PCL

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

only insufficient to plausibly show ongoing or “imminent” danger of any serious physical 

injury, they also fail as a matter of law to support any viable federal claim for relief and 

are plainly frivolous. See Ouzts v. Maryland Nat’l Ins. Co., 505 F.2d 547, 550 (9th Cir. 

1974) (“[P]urely private conduct, no matter how wrongful, is not within the protective 

orbit of section 1983.”); Vey v. Clinton, 520 U.S. 937, 937 (1997) (denying pro se litigant 

IFP status based on alleged civil rights and RICO violations by U.S. President and private 

citizens as “patently frivolous.”); see also Byrd v. Dir. of Corr., No. 3:15-CV-2339-GPCKSC, 2016 WL 773229, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 29, 2016) (finding prisoner’s allegations of 

having been denied access to court and discriminated against based on race and religion 

insufficient to invoke § 1915(g)’s imminent danger exception); In re Gonzalez, 2008 WL 

666465 at *2-3 (N.D. Cal. March 6, 2008) (finding prisoner with a “delusional tale” of 

having a “special genetic structure,” and being “irradiated ... by radioactive smoke” by 

“government scientists,” did not plausibly allege “imminent danger of serious physical 

injury.”); Holz v. McFadden, 2010 WL 3069745 at *3 (C.D. Cal. May 21, 2010) (finding 

“imminent danger” exception to § 1915(g) inapplicable where prisoner implausibly 

claimed the FBI and BOP were “going to kill him.”); Sierra v. Woodford, 2010 WL 

1657493 at *3 (E.D. Cal. April 23, 2010) (finding “long, narrative, rambling statements 

regarding a cycle of violence, and vague references to motives to harm” insufficient to 

show Plaintiff faced an “ongoing danger” as required by Cervantes).

And while Defendants typically carry the burden to show that 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 

Case 3:18-cv-00835-CAB-PCL Document 5 Filed 06/04/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 7
5

3:18-cv-00835-CAB-PCL

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

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

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).

Thus, this Court takes judicial notice that Plaintiff, Eric Chatman, identified as 

CDCR Inmate #BD-5474, has had four prior prisoner civil actions dismissed in this

district alone on the grounds that they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim 

upon which relief may be granted. They are: 

1) Chatman v. Toyota of Escondido, et al., Civil Case No. 3:17-cv-01853-BASJLB (S.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2017) (Order Granting Motion to Proceed IFP and Dismissing 

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

without leave to amend) (ECF No. 18) (“strike one”);

2) Chatman v. Cush Acura, et al., Civil Case No. 3:17-cv-01852-WQH-JLB

(S.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2017) (Order Granting Motion to Proceed IFP and Dismissing Civil 

Action for Failing to State a Claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and without 

leave to amend) (ECF No. 20) (“strike two”);

3) Chatman v. Super 8 Motel, et al., Civil Case No. 3:17-cv-02517-DMS-JMA 

(S.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2018) (Order Denying Motion to Proceed IFP and Dismissing Civil 

Action for Failing to State a Claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and without 

leave to amend) (ECF No. 6) (“strike three”); and 

4) Chatman v. Super 8 Motel Co., et al., Civil Case No. 3:18-cv-00213-BASNLS (S.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 2018) (Order Granting Motion to Proceed IFP and Dismissing 

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

without leave to amend) (ECF No. 6) (“strike four”).1

 

1 Plaintiff has also been denied leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) in 

several subsequent cases: Chatman v. Cush Honda, et al., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:18-

Case 3:18-cv-00835-CAB-PCL Document 5 Filed 06/04/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 7
6

3:18-cv-00835-CAB-PCL

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

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 v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1180 (9th Cir. 1999) (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.”).

II. Motion to Appoint Counsel

In addition, Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Appoint Counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(1) (ECF No. 4). 

However, a motion to appoint counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) 

necessarily depends upon Plaintiff’s ability to proceed IFP. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) 

(“The court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.”). 

It requires that Plaintiff has been determined eligible to proceed pursuant to the IFP 

statute due to indigence, is within “the sound discretion of the trial court[,] and is granted 

only in exceptional circumstances.” Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 

(9th Cir. 2004). Because Plaintiff has failed to allege the presence of exceptional

circumstances here, and is not entitled to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) in 

this case, he is also not entitled to the appointment of counsel under § 1915(e)(1).

 

cv-00414-JLS-KSC (March 26, 2018 Order) (ECF No. 5); Chatman v. Super 8 Motel 

Corp., et al., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:18-cv-00436-CAB-RBB (March 19, 2018 Order) 

(ECF No. 6); Chatman v. Liquor Store, et al., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:18-cv-00563-

GPC-JMA (May 14, 2018 Order) (ECF No. 8); Chatman v. Ferrari Newport, et al., S.D. 

Cal. Civil Case No. 3:18-cv-00655-CAB-MDD (May 15, 2018 Order) (ECF No. 6); 

Chatman v. Beverly Hills Lamborghini, et al., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:18-cv-00668-

DMS-JMA (April 16, 2018 Order) (ECF No. 3); and Chatman v. Citibank Corp., et al., 

S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:18-cv-00748-LAB-AGS (April 23, 2018 Order) (ECF No. 3).

Case 3:18-cv-00835-CAB-PCL Document 5 Filed 06/04/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 7
7

3:18-cv-00835-CAB-PCL

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

III. Conclusion and Orders

 For the reasons discussed, the Court:

1) DENIES Plaintiff’s Motions to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 2) and to Appoint 

Counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (ECF No. 4) as barred by 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(g);

2) DISMISSES this civil action without prejudice for failure to pay the full 

statutory and administrative $400 civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a);

3) CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal from this Order would be frivolous and 

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

4) DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter judgment and close the file.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 4, 2018

 

2 Because Plaintiff has demonstrated a tendency to violate S.D. Cal. Local Civil Rule 83.9

which provides that “attorneys or parties to any action must refrain from writing letters to 

the judge,” in all his previous cases, he is again reminded that “[p]ro se litigants must follow 

the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.” King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 

(9th Cir. 1987). Therefore, any ex parte letters he may attempt to file in this matter will be 

summarily rejected based on Local Rule 83.9, and because this Order terminates his case.

Case 3:18-cv-00835-CAB-PCL Document 5 Filed 06/04/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 7