Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05717/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05717-0/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

PELICAN BAY STATE PRISON 

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-05717-EMC 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE

CONTEMPLATED DISMISSAL

Docket Nos. 1, 2, 4

Kenneth Smith, a prisoner at Pelican Bay State Prison, filed this pro se civil rights action 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He also has applied to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915.

A. Order To Show Cause Under § 1915(g)

A prisoner may not bring a civil action in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 “if the 

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 may be granted, unless the prisoner 

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

requires that the court consider prisoner actions dismissed before, as well as after, the statute's 

1996 enactment. Tierney v. Kupers, 128 F.3d 1310, 1311-12 (9th Cir. 1997).

For purposes of a dismissal that may be counted under § 1915(g), the phrase “fails to state 

a claim on which relief may be granted” parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

12(b)(6) and carries the same interpretation, the word “frivolous” refers to a case that is “„of little 

weight or importance: having no basis in law or fact,‟” and the word “malicious” refers to a case 

“filed with the „intention or desire to harm another.‟” Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th 

Case 3:15-cv-05717-EMC Document 5 Filed 04/11/16 Page 1 of 4
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

For the Northern District of California

Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). Only cases within one of these three categories can be counted as 

strikes for § 1915(g) purposes, so the mere fact that the prisoner has filed many cases does not 

alone warrant dismissal of the present action under § 1915(g). See Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1121. 

Rather, dismissal of an action under § 1915(g) should only occur when, “after careful evaluation 

of the order dismissing an [earlier] action, and other relevant information, the district court 

determines that the action was dismissed because it was frivolous, malicious or failed to state a 

claim.” Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1121.

Andrews requires that a prisoner be given notice of the potential applicability of § 1915(g), 

by either the district court or the defendants, but also requires the prisoner to bear the ultimate 

burden of persuasion that § 1915(g) does not bar pauper status for him. Andrews, 398 F.3d at 

1121. Andrews implicitly allows the court to sua sponte raise the § 1915(g) problem, but requires 

the court to notify the prisoner of the earlier dismissals it considers to support a § 1915(g) 

dismissal and allow the prisoner an opportunity to be heard on the matter before dismissing the 

action. Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1120. A dismissal under § 1915(g) means that a prisoner cannot 

proceed with his action as a pauper under § 1915, but he still may pursue his claims if he pays the 

full filing fee at the outset of the action.

Mr. Smith is now given notice that the Court believes the following dismissals may be 

counted as dismissals for purposes of § 1915(g): First, Smith v. Civil Judge, N.D. Cal. Case No. C 

00-1428 MHP, was dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

Second, Smith v. Ms. Keen, N.D. Cal. Case No. C 00-1614 MHP, was dismissed for failed to state 

a claim upon which relief may be granted. Third, Smith v. Director San Francisco Greyhound Bus 

Dept. Station, N.D. Cal. Case No. C 09-1851 MHP, was dismissed for failure to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted. Fourth, Smith v. San Quentin State Prison, N.D. Cal. Case No. C 09-

2381 MHP, was dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The 

Court made its evaluation of these cases based on the dismissal orders and docket sheets in them. 

See Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1120 (sometimes the docket records may be sufficient, and sometime 

the actual court files may need to be consulted). 

In light of these dismissals, and because Mr. Smith does not appear to be under imminent 

Case 3:15-cv-05717-EMC Document 5 Filed 04/11/16 Page 2 of 4
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

danger of serious physical injury, he is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing filed no later 

than May 6, 2016 why in forma pauperis status should not be denied and this action should not be 

dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). In the alternative to showing cause why the action 

should not be dismissed, Mr. Smith may avoid dismissal by paying the full $400.00 filing fee by 

the deadline.

B. Order To Show Cause Re. Duplicative Complaint

The district court may dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint “„that merely repeats 

pending or previously litigated claims.‟” Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 

1995); Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988) (duplicative or repetitious litigation 

of virtually identical causes of action is subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 as malicious); 

Van Meter v. Morgan, 518 F.2d 366 (8th Cir. 1975) (dismissal of complaint as frivolous was not 

an abuse of discretion where plaintiff had filed other similar complaints). 

In addition to showing cause why in forma pauperis status should not be denied, Mr. Smith 

must show cause why this action should not be dismissed as duplicative of an earlier action he 

filed. The complaint in this action appears to repeat the allegations in Mr. Smith‟s complaint in 

Smith v. Pelican Bay State Prison, Case No. C 14-2162 EMC. In both actions, Mr. Smith alleged 

that he was sexually assaulted at Pelican Bay State Prison. In both actions, he appeared to be 

complaining about events and omissions that occurred in the 1990s because, although he does not 

allege when the assaults occurred, he attached to the complaints in both cases excerpts of his 

medical records from 1996-1997 for his reports of sexual assaults. Compare Docket No. 1 at 6-7 

with Docket No. 1 at 10 and 41 in Smith v. Pelican Bay State Prison, Case No. C 14-2162 EMC. 

(In the 2014 action, Mr. Smith filed additional medical and mental health care records indicating 

that sexual assault testing had negative results and that his reports of sexual assaults appeared to 

be delusional. Docket No. 1 at 1-4 in Smith v. Pelican Bay State Prison, Case No. C 14-2162 

EMC.) The earlier action was “dismissed because it was filed more than a dozen years too late 

and is barred by the statute of limitations.” Docket No. 6 at 1 in Smith v. Pelican Bay State 

Prison, Case No. C 14-2162 EMC. 

Case 3:15-cv-05717-EMC Document 5 Filed 04/11/16 Page 3 of 4
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

Mr. Smith must show cause in a writing filed no later than May 6, 2016, why this action 

should not be dismissed as duplicative of the 2014 action. Failing to file the written response to 

the order to show cause will result in the dismissal of this action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 11, 2016

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-05717-EMC Document 5 Filed 04/11/16 Page 4 of 4