Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00524/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00524-0/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

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

DAVID B. TURNER, JR.,

Inmate No. 15780644,

Case No. 16cv0524 BTM (PCL)

Plaintiff, ORDER: 

(1) DENYING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

AS BARRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)

(ECF Doc. No. 3);

AND 

(2) DISMISSING CASE FOR

FAILURE TO PAY FILING 

FEE REQUIRED BY 

28 U.S.C. § 1914(a)

vs.

PLASMA CENTER; STATE OF

CALIFORNIA; 2 JOHN DOES, 

Defendants.

Plaintiff, David B. Turner, Jr., an inmate currently incarcerated at the George Bailey

Detention Facility located in San Diego, California and proceeding pro se, has filed this civil

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

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

(“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (ECF Doc. No. 3).

/ / /

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\BTM\16cv0524-dny-IFP-1915(g).wpd 1 16cv0524 BTM (PCL)

Case 3:16-cv-00524-BTM-PCL Document 4 Filed 04/05/16 Page 1 of 4
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

I. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED IFP

“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 installments 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:

. . . 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) (hereafter “Andrews”). 

“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). “[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). Once a prisoner has

accumulated three strikes, he is prohibited bysection 1915(g) frompursuing anyother IFP action

in federal court unless he can show 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.”).

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\BTM\16cv0524-dny-IFP-1915(g).wpd 2 16cv0524 BTM (PCL)

Case 3:16-cv-00524-BTM-PCL Document 4 Filed 04/05/16 Page 2 of 4
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

II. APPLICATION TO PLAINTIFF

As an initial matter, the Court has carefully reviewed Plaintiff’s pleading and has

ascertained that it contains no “plausible allegation” 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)). In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that staff members at the Plasma Center caused

him injuries in 2011 and 2013. Plaintiff filed this action in 2016.

A court “‘may take 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). This Court takes judicial notice that

Plaintiff has had three prior prisoner civil actions dismissed on the grounds that they were

frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

 They are: 

1) Turner v. Metropolitan Transit System, et al., Civil Case No. 09-0770 L (POR)

(S.D. Cal. Nov. 11, 2009) (Order denying amended motion to proceed in forma

pauperis and dismissing amended complaint for failing to state a claim) (strike

one);

2) Turner v. Corporal Saunder, et al., Civil Case No. 13-1368 MMA (DHB) (S.D.

Cal. June 18, 2013) (Order dismissing action as frivolous and denying motion to

proceed in forma pauperis as moot) (strike two); and

3) Turner v. County of San Diego, et al., Civil Case No. 13-2288 LAB (RBB) (S.D.

Cal. Nov. 12, 2013) (Order granting motion to proceed in forma pauperis and

dismissing complaint for failing to state a claim) (strike three).

Accordingly, because Plaintiff has, while incarcerated, accumulated three “strikes” as

defined by § 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

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\BTM\16cv0524-dny-IFP-1915(g).wpd 3 16cv0524 BTM (PCL)

Case 3:16-cv-00524-BTM-PCL Document 4 Filed 04/05/16 Page 3 of 4
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

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

the courts; it onlyprecludes prisoners with a history of abusing the legal systemfromcontinuing

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 set forth above, the Court hereby:

(1) DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF Doc. No. 3) as barred by 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g);

(2) DISMISSES this action sua sponte without prejudice for failing to prepay the

$400 filing fee pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a).

The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 5, 2016

BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\BTM\16cv0524-dny-IFP-1915(g).wpd 4 16cv0524 BTM (PCL)

Case 3:16-cv-00524-BTM-PCL Document 4 Filed 04/05/16 Page 4 of 4