Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01445/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01445-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAFAYETTE CADE, 

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

V. BOKARIUS, et al.,

Defendant(s). 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-1445 CRB (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

On March 13, 2007, plaintiff, a prisoner at Kern Valley State Prison and

frequent litigant in federal court, filed a pro se civil rights complaint for damages

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging various violations of his federal rights while he

was incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison. He also sought to proceed in

forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

On March 20, 2007, the court found that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) bars plaintiff

from proceeding in forma pauperis in this action because plaintiff: (1) has had

three or more prior prisoner actions dismissed by a federal district court on the

grounds that they are frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted; and (2) is not seeking relief from a danger of serious

physical injury which is imminent at the time of filing. Mar. 20, 2007 Order at 2

(citing cases).

Pursuant to the law of the circuit, plaintiff nonetheless was afforded an

opportunity to persuade the court that § 1915(g) does not bar pauper status for

him. Id. (citing Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1120 (9th Cir. 2005)). The

Case 3:07-cv-01445-CRB Document 16 Filed 08/06/07 Page 1 of 3
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 2

court gave plaintiff 30 days to "show cause why § 1915(g) does not bar pauper

status for him," and explained that "[f]ailure to show cause, or pay the requisite 

$ 350.00 filing fee, within the designated time will result in the dismissal of this

action without prejudice to bringing it in a new paid complaint." Id.

Plaintiff since sought and received three extensions of time to file a

response to the court's March 20, 2007 order. In his most recent motion, he also

sought an order directing the clerk to provide him with copies of the "dockets" of

the cases cited by the court in its March 20, 2007 order as examples of the three

or more prior prisoner actions or appeals of plaintiff's which have been dismissed

by a federal court on the grounds that they are frivolous, malicious, or fail to state

a claim upon which relief may be granted – Cade v. Ralphs Grocery Store, No.

04-CV-3529-UA-SH (C.D. Cal. June 1, 2004) (order of dismissal); Cade v.

Villalobos, No. 03-CV-5897-AWI-SMS (E.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2005) (same); Cade

v. Ralphs, No. 02-CV-2742-UA-SH (C.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2002, June 11, 2002 and

Apr. 13, 2004) (same); Cade v. Villalobos, No. 04-16522 (9th Cir. Sept. 21,

2004) (order of dismissal for lack of jurisdiction); Cade v. Ralphs Grocery Store,

No. 04-56409 (9th Cir. Sept. 21, 2004) (same). He argued that without access to

the dockets of these cases he is unable to respond to the court's order. 

On June 20, 2007, the court granted plaintiff's motion and instructed the

clerk to send plaintiff copies of the docket sheets and pertinent orders in the cases

listed above. The court also noted that there are three additional prior prisoner

actions of plaintiff's which were dismissed by a federal court on the grounds that

they are frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted, and bar him from proceeding in forma pauperis in this action – Cade v.

Woodford, No. 06-CV-0060-OWW-SMS (E.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2007) (order of

dismissal); Cade v. Hubbard, No. 05-CV-0834-AWI-LJO (E.D. Cal. May 29,

Case 3:07-cv-01445-CRB Document 16 Filed 08/06/07 Page 2 of 3
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 3

2006) (same); Cade v. Yates, No. 04-CV-6769-OWW-LJO (E.D. Cal. Aug. 26,

2006) (same) – and instructed the clerk to send plaintiff copies of the docket

sheets and pertinent orders in these additional three cases as well.

The court gave plaintiff 30 days to "show cause why § 1915(g) does not

bar pauper status for him," and made clear that "[f]ailure to show cause, or pay

the requisite $ 350.00 filing fee, within the designated time will result in the

dismissal of this action without prejudice to bringing it in a new paid complaint." 

June 20, 2007 Order at 3. 

More than 40 days have elapsed and plaintiff still has not filed a response

to the court's June 20, 2007 order or paid the filing fee. Nor has he sought any

further extension of time to do so. Before the court issued its June 20, 2007

order, plaintiff did submit papers (dated June 14, 2007 and stamped filed June

25, 2007) in which he argues that the two appeals dismissed by the Ninth Circuit

for lack of jurisdiction and cited by this court as strikes are not proper strikes

under § 1915(g). But even if he is correct, the court has determined that six other

dismissal by the various federal district courts in California constitute strikes

under § 1915(g). Plaintiff has not shown in any persuasive manner that §

1915(g) does not bar pauper status for him. The action is DISMISSED without

prejudice to bringing it in a paid complaint.

The clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with this order and close the

file. No fee is due.

SO ORDERED.

DATED: Aug. 06, 2007 CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge 

G:\PRO-SE\CRB\CR.07\Cade1.or5.wpd

Case 3:07-cv-01445-CRB Document 16 Filed 08/06/07 Page 3 of 3