Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-03248/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-03248-1/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Order of Dismissal

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.07\Weaver03248_3strikes-dismissal.wpd

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIE WEAVER,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER

MILLER, 

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-03248 JW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

(Docket Nos. 3 & 5)

Plaintiff, a California state prisoner and frequent litigant in this Court, has

filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He seeks to

proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Plaintiff was ordered to show

cause why the complaint should not be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

He requests an extension of time to file an answer.

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”) was enacted, and

became effective, on April 26, 1996. It provides that 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,

Case 5:07-cv-03248-JW Document 6 Filed 10/19/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Order of Dismissal

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.07\Weaver03248_3strikes-dismissal.wpd 2

unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g). Section 1915(g) requires that this 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). And as the text of § 1915(g) makes clear,

the court may count as strikes dismissals of district court cases as well as dismissals

of appeals. See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1178 (9th Cir. 1999) (prisoner

does not get three frivolous claims and three frivolous appeals before being barred

by § 1915(g)).

Here, plaintiff has had three or more prisoner actions/appeals 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: (1) Weaver v. Pelican Bay State Prison, No. C

04-3077 JW (PR) (N.D. Cal. May 18, 2005) (civil rights action dismissed for failure

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted); (2) Weaver v. Nimrod, No. C 04-

3154 JW (PR) (N.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2004) (same); (3) Weaver v. Pelican Bay State

Prison Mail Room, No. C 04-4784 JW (PR) (N.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2005) (same); (4)

Weaver v. Daniel, No. C 05-1373 JW (PR) (N.D. Cal. May 9, 2005) (same); and (5)

Weaver v. Monterio, et al., No. 05-0166 RSWL (FMO) (C.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2005)

(same). Plaintiff therefore may proceed in forma pauperis only if he is seeking relief

from a danger of serious physical injury which is “imminent” at the time of filing. 

See Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307, 312 (3d Cir. 2001) (en banc);

Medberry v. Butler, 185 F.3d 1189, 1192-93 (11th Cir. 1999); Ashley v. Dilworth,

147 F.3d 715, 717 (8th Cir. 1998); Banos v. O’Guin, 144 F.3d 883, 885 (5th Cir.

1998). He is not.

Plaintiff is well aware of the requirements of § 1915(g) which bar him from

proceeding in forma pauperis in the instant action. Plaintiff has filed a total of

seventy-nine (79) complaints in pro se in this Court since 2004 to the date of this

order, each time filing an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court

ordered plaintiff in eighteen separate cases to show cause why the complaint should

Case 5:07-cv-03248-JW Document 6 Filed 10/19/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Order of Dismissal

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.07\Weaver03248_3strikes-dismissal.wpd 3

not be dismissed under 1915(g), and each time plaintiff’s response was unpersuasive

and resulted in a dismissal. See e.g.. Weaver v. Whiteford, No. C 04-03894 JW

(PR) (N.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2006), Weaver v. Pelican Bay State Prison, No. C 05-00632

JW (PR) (N.D. Cal. July 27, 2007), Weaver v. Pelican Bay State Prison, No. C 05-

02441 JW (PR) (N.D. Cal. Dec. 27, 2005), Weaver v. Pelican Bay State Prison Mail

Room, No. C 06-02500 JW (PR) (N.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2006), and Weaver v. Diaz, No.

C 07-00162 JW (PR) (N.D. Cal. July 27, 2007). In each answer, plaintiff failed to

attack the validity of his strikes under 1915(g) or show that he was in imminent

danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. Because plaintiff was

given numerous opportunities to attack the validity of the prior strikes and

repeatedly failed to do so, the Court deems the validity of the prior strikes

undisputed. Therefore, plaintiff must show on the face of his complaint that he is

imminent danger of serious physical injury in order to proceed under § 1915(g). 

Plaintiff has not. 

Because plaintiff has had three or more prior dismissals and is not under

imminent danger of serious physical injury, his request to proceed in forma pauperis

(Docket No. 3) is DENIED and the instant action is DISMISSED without prejudice

to bringing it in a paid complaint. 

Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file an answer (Docket No. 5) is

DENIED as he has failed to show good cause why such an extension should be

granted. Plaintiff is a seasoned filer who is fully aware of the Court’s filing

requirements and deadlines, and his routine and frequent requests for extensions of

time in all his cases have only resulted in unnecessary delay. 

The clerk shall terminate any pending motions. 

DATED: 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

October 9, 2007

Case 5:07-cv-03248-JW Document 6 Filed 10/19/07 Page 3 of 3