Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02362/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02362-3/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

-1- 10cv2362 WQH (BLM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD W. SINGSON,

CDCR #H-23699,

Civil No. 10cv2362 WQH (BLM)

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR ORDER DIRECTING

U.S. MARSHAL TO EFFECT

SERVICE OF PROCESS 

PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(2)

[ECF No. 20]

vs.

SCOTT KERNAN. et al., 

Defendants.

I. Procedural History

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, currently incarcerated at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional

Facility located in San Diego, California and proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights Complaint

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 15, 2010. No Defendants have been served in this

action and Plaintiff is now seeking to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) for purposes of service

only. At the time he filed this action, Plaintiff did not move to proceed in forma pauperis

(“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); instead, he prepaid the entire $350 civil filing fee.

////

////

Case 3:10-cv-02362-WQH-BLM Document 21 Filed 01/26/12 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

-2- 10cv2362 WQH (BLM)

II. Plaintiff’s Motion for Court-Ordered Marshal Service [Doc. No. 5]

 Because plaintiffs who prepay the civil filing fee are not considered to proceed IFP, they

are not automatically entitled to have the U.S. Marshal effect service on their behalf, and they

must do so within the 120 days provided by FED.R.CIV.P. 4 (m). Boudette v. Barnette, 923 F.2d

754, 757 (9th Cir. 1991) (absent a specific request and court order that the U.S. Marshal effect

service on their behalf pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(2), persons who prepay civil filing fees

“remain[] responsible for timely service”); 4A WRIGHT & MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE &

PROCEDURE §§ 1090, 1094 (3d ed. 2002).

Plaintiff has now filed a Motion requesting that the U.S. Marshal effect service of his

First Amended Complaint pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) which the

Court has construed as a Motion to Proceed IFP [ECF No. 20]. 

FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(2) provides that “[a]t the request of the plaintiff . . . the court may

direct that service be effected by a United States marshal, deputy United States marshal, or other

person or officer specially appointed by the court for that purpose.” FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(2). In

addition, as noted above, when plaintiffs are granted leave to proceed IFP, the United States

Marshal, upon order of the court, is authorized to serve the summons and complaint on the

pauper’s behalf. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); Boudette, 923 F.2d at 757; Walker v. Sumner, 14

F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1993). 

However, Plaintiff is not entitled to proceed IFP in this matter. Section 1915 of Title 28

of the United States Code allows certain litigants to pursue civil litigation IFP, that is, without

the full prepayment of fees or costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). However, the Prison Litigation

Reform Act (“PLRA”) amended section 1915 to preclude the privilege to proceed IFP:

. . . 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 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

Case 3:10-cv-02362-WQH-BLM Document 21 Filed 01/26/12 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

-3- 10cv2362 WQH (BLM)

§ 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). 

“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 by section 1915(g) from pursuing any other 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.”).

As an initial matter, the Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint and has

ascertained that there is no “plausible allegation” to suggest Plaintiff “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)).

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). Here, the Court takes judicial notice

that Plaintiff has had at least three prior prisoner civil actions dismissed in the Eastern District

of California on the grounds that they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A. See Singson v.

Case 3:10-cv-02362-WQH-BLM Document 21 Filed 01/26/12 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 1

 The Court further notes that Plaintiff has filed twenty seven (27) separate § 1983 civil rights

actions in the Northern, Southern, and Eastern Districts of California. 

-4- 10cv2362 WQH (BLM)

Carey, E.D. Civil Case No. 01-5090 (Order by Judge Coyle dismissing action for failing to state

a claim) (strike one); Singson v. Cal. Dep’t of Corrections, E.D. Civil Case No. 01-6573 (Order

by Judge Coyle dismissing action for failing to state a claim) (strike two); Singson v. D.G.

Adams, E.D. Civil Case No. 02-6006 (Order by Judge Wanger dismissing action for failing to

state a claim) (strike three).1

Thus, because Plaintiff is barred from proceeding IFP in this matter pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g), Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP for purposes of authorizing the United

States Marshal Service to effect service on the Defendants is DENIED.

III. Conclusion and Order

Good cause having now been shown, IT IS ORDERED that:

Plaintiff’s “Motion for Order on the United States Marshal to Effect Service on All of

the Defendants in this Case” [ECF No. 20] is DENIED. Within sixty (60) days of this order,

Plaintiff must serve Defendants with a copy of the Complaint and Summons. If Plaintiff fails

to serve Defendants within sixty days, the Court will dismiss this action pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 26, 2012

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-02362-WQH-BLM Document 21 Filed 01/26/12 Page 4 of 4