Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-1_16-cv-04977/USCOURTS-cand-1_16-cv-04977-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUREKA DIVISON

CARLOS GILBERT LAW,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEPUTY GOODEN, et. al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-4977-NJV (PR) 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff has also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff alleges that he was 

assaulted on December 4, 2015, while at San Francisco County Jail. He is now incarcerated at the 

California Medical Facility. 

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”), enacted April 26, 1996, provides 

that a prisoner may not bring a civil action or appeal a civil judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 “if 

the prisoner has, on three 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 may be granted, unless the 

prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The phrase 

“fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” as used in § 1915(g), “parallels the 

language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 

(9th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). A case is “frivolous” within the meaning of § 

1915(g) if “it is of little weight or importance: having no basis in law or fact.” Id. (internal 

quotation marks omitted). Further, because § 1915(g) is a procedural rule that does not raise 

Case 1:16-cv-04977-NJV Document 6 Filed 09/19/16 Page 1 of 2
2

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

Northern District of California

retroactivity concerns, cases dismissed before the effective date of § 1915(g) may be counted as 

qualifying dismissals or “strikes.” See Tierney v. Kupers, 128 F.3d 1310, 1311-12 (9th Cir. 1997). 

A dismissal under § 1915(g) means that a prisoner cannot proceed with his action as a pauper 

under § 1915(g), but he still may pursue his claim if he pays the full filing fee at the outset of the 

action.

It appears that plaintiff has at least four strikes pursuant to § 1915(g):

- Law v. Benitez, No. 06-1061 OWW LJO (E.D. Cal.) Docket Nos. 10, 11.

- Law v. Green, No. 07-1071 LJO DLB (E.D. Cal.) Docket Nos. 8, 10.

- Law v. Miller, No. 11-1339 LJO SKO (E.D. Cal.) Docket Nos. 13, 14.

- Law v. Domico, No. 10-2225 BAM (E.D. Cal.) Docket Nos. 18, 19.

Plaintiff shall show cause within twenty-one (21) days, why this case should not be 

deemed three strikes barred and the application to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Failure to 

reply will result in dismissal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 19, 2016

________________________

NANDOR J. VADAS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:16-cv-04977-NJV Document 6 Filed 09/19/16 Page 2 of 2