Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00509/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00509-0/pdf.json

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

---

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

.. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

1711 

18 

1911 

21 

22 II 

FlLED 

13 ,. ~ I I I 3= 31 

I"~ ... 

, :, ~ .; v~. 

ttQ DEPUTY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MATTHEW ALAN LAWRIE, 

CDCR #F -7 4464 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et aI., 

Defendants. 

Civil No. 13cv0509 WQH (BGS) 

ORDER: 

(1) DENYING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

AS BARRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) 

[ECF No.2] 

AND 

(2) DISMISSING CASE FOR 

FAILURE TO PAY FILING 

FEE REQUIRED BY 

28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) 

Plaintiff, a state inmate currently incarcerated at Corcoran State Prison located in 

23 II Corcoran, California and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

2411 § 1983. Plaintiffhas not prepaid the civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); instead, 

II he has submitted a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis ("IFP") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

26 § 1915(a) [ECF No.2]. 

27 / / / 

28 / / / 

l;\Everyon¢\_ EFILE-PROSE\WQH\13C\<o()S09-Deny-IFP-1915(S).wpd -1- 13cv0509 WQH (BGS) 

Case 3:13-cv-00509-WQH-BGS Document 3 Filed 03/11/13 Page 1 of 4
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

1II I. Motion to Proceed IFP 

2 II Section 1915 ofTitle 28 ofthe United States Code allows certain litigants to pursue civil 

3 II litigation IFP, that is, without the full prepayment of fees or costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). 

4 II However, the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA") amended section 1915 to preclude the 

II privilege to proceed IFP: 

6 
 . . . if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while 

incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal 

7 
 in a court ofthe United States that was dismissed on the grounds 

that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 

8 
 relief can be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger 

of serious physical injury. 

9 

II 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). "This subdivision is commonly known as the 'three strikes' provision." 

11 II Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1116 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005) (hereafter "Andrews"). "Pursuant to 

1211 § 1915(g), a prisoner with three strikes or more cannot proceed IFP." Jd.; see also Andrews v. 

13 II Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2007) (hereafter "Cervantes") (under the PLRA, 

14 II "[p]risoners who have repeatedly brought unsuccessful suits may entirely be barred from IFP 

II status under the three strikes rule[.]"). The objective of the PLRA is to further "the 

16 II congressional goal ofreducing frivolous prisoner litigation in federal court." Tierney v. Kupers, 

1711 128 F.3d 1310,1312 (9th Cir. 1997). 

18 II "Strikes are prior cases or appeals, brought while the plaintiffwas a prisoner, which were 

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

II Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1116 n.l (internal quotations omitted), "even ifthe district court styles 

21 II such dismissal as a denial ofthe prisoner's application to file the action without prepayment of 

22 II the full filing fee." 0 'Neal v. Price, 531 F.3d 1146, 1153 (9th Cir. 2008). Once a prisoner has 

23 II accumulated three strikes, he is prohibited by section 1915(g) from pursuing any other IFP action 

24 II in federal court unless he can show he is facing "imminent danger of serious physical injury." 

II See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Cervantes, 493 F.3d at 1051-52 (noting § 1915(g)'s exception for IFP 

26 II complaints which "make[] a plausible allegation that the prisoner faced 'imminent danger of 

27 II serious physical injury' at the time of filing."). 

28 II / / / 

1:lEveryone'._EFILE-PROSElWQlI\I3C1<l109.Deny-lFP·1915(g).wpd -2- 13cv0509 WQH (BGS) 

Case 3:13-cv-00509-WQH-BGS Document 3 Filed 03/11/13 Page 2 of 4
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

Application of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) 1 II II. 

2 As an initial matter, the Court has carefully reviewed Plaintiffs Complaint and has 

3 II ascertained that there is no "plausible allegation" to suggest Plaintiff"faced 'imminent danger 

411 of serious physical injury' at the time of filing." Cervantes, 493 F.3d at 1055 (quoting 28 

II U.S.C. § 1915(g)). A court "'may take notice ofproceedings in other courts, both within and 

6 II without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at 

711 issue.'" Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1225 (9th Cir. 2007) (quotingBennettv. Medtronic, 

811 Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 803 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002)); see also United States ex reI. Robinson Rancheria 

911 Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992). Thus, this Court takes 

II judicial notice that Plaintiff has had three prisoner civil actions dismissed on the grounds that 

11 II they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. I 

1211 They are: 

13 1) Lawrie v. Vargas, et aI., Civil Case No. 11 cv2081 H (BLM) (S.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 

14 2011 Order dismissing action for seeking monetary damages against immune 

defendants and for failing to state a claim) (strike one); 

16 2) Lawrie v. Garcia, et al., Civil Case No. 11cv2237 DMS (BLM) (S.D. Cal. Feb. 

17 2, 2012 order dismissing action for seeking monetary damages against immune 

18 defendants and for failing to state a claim) (strike two); and 

19 3) Lawrie v. Cline, et aI., Civil Case No. 11cv2584 H (JMA) (S.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 

II 2011 Order dismissing action for failing to state a claim and for seeking monetary 

21 II damages against defendant who are immune) ( strike three). 

22 II Accordingly, because Plaintiff has, while incarcerated, accumulated three "strikes" 

23 II pursuant to § 1915(g), and he fails to make a "plausible allegation" that he faced imminent 

24 II danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed his Complaint, he is not entitled to the 

II privilege of proceeding IFP in this action. See Cervantes, 493 F.3d at 1055; Rodriguez, 169 

26" F.3d at 1180 (finding that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) "does not prevent all prisoners from accessing 

27 

28 I In fact, a review ofPACER reveals that Plaintiff has filed twenty one (21) civil rights actions 

in the Northern, Eastern and Southern Districts of California. 

J;lJ;veryone\_EFILE-PROSE\WQH\13<"l509-Deny-1FP-19I 5(g)."1"i -3- 13cv0509 WQH (8GS) 

Case 3:13-cv-00509-WQH-BGS Document 3 Filed 03/11/13 Page 3 of 4
1 II the courts; it only precludes prisoners with a history ofabusing the legal system from continuing 

2 II to abuse it while enjoying IFP status"); see also Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F .2d 1221, 1231 (9th 

3 II Cir. 1984) ("[C]ourt permission to proceed IFP is itself a matter ofprivilege and not right."). 

4 II III. Conclusion and Order 

5 II For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby: 

6 I) DENIES Plaintiffs Motion to Proceed IFP [ECF No.2] pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

7 § 1915(g); 

8 2) DISMISSES this action without prejUdice for failure to pay the $350 civil filing 

911 fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), and 

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

1111 would not be taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). See Coppedge v. United 

1211 States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962); Gardner v. Pogue, 558 F.2d 548, 550 (9th Cir. 1977) 

13 II (indigent appellant is permitted to proceed IFP on appeal only ifappeal would not be frivolous). 

14 II The Clerk shall close the file. 

15 II IT IS SO ORDERED. 

HON. WILLIAM 

United States Di 

1:lEveryonel.EFlLE.PROSE\WQH\13cv0509.o.ny-IFP-1915(g),,,pd -4- 13cv0509 WQH (BGS) 

Case 3:13-cv-00509-WQH-BGS Document 3 Filed 03/11/13 Page 4 of 4