Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01436/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01436-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

19cv1436

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARLAND A. JONES,

CDCR #F-47928,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-1436-BAS-KSC 

ORDER:

(1) DENYING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

AS BARRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) 

[ECF Doc. No. 2]; AND 

(2) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR 

FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEE 

REQUIRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a);

On July 30, 2019, Plaintiff Garland A. Jones, a state inmate currently incarcerated 

at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”) located in San Diego, California, 

filed a civil rights Complaint (“Compl.”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) 

Plaintiff has also filed a certified copy of his inmate trust account statement which the 

Court has liberally construed as a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) (ECF No. 

2). For the reasons herein, the Court denies Plaintiff’s IFP motion and dismisses this action 

with prejudice. 

STANDARD FOR IFP MOTION

“All persons, not just prisoners, may seek IFP status.” Moore v. Maricopa Cty.

Case 3:19-cv-01436-BAS-KSC Document 3 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

19cv1436

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

Sheriff’s Office, 657 F.3d 890, 892 (9th Cir. 2011). “Prisoners” like Plaintiff, however, 

“face an additional hurdle.” Id. In addition to requiring prisoners to “pay the full amount 

of a filing fee,” in “increments” as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3)(b), Williams v. 

Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2015), the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) 

amended section 1915 to preclude the privilege to proceed IFP:

. . . if [a] 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) (hereinafter 

“Andrews”). “Pursuant to § 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). “[S]ection 

1915(g)’s cap on prior dismissed claims applies to claims dismissed both before and after 

the statute’s effective date.” Id. at 1311.

“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–

Case 3:19-cv-01436-BAS-KSC Document 3 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

19cv1436

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

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.”).

APPLICATION TO PLAINTIFF

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

ascertained that it does not contain “plausible allegations” which suggest he “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). Thus, this Court takes judicial notice that Plaintiff, while incarcerated, has 

brought at least three prior civil actions which have been dismissed on the grounds that 

they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). They are: 

1) Jones v. Tolson, Civil Case No. 1:15-cv-01037-MJS (PC) (E.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 

2015) (Order Dismissing Action with prejudice for failing to state a claim) (strike 

one);

2) Jones v. Tiscornia, Civil Case No. 3:18-cv-00544-GPC-PCL (S.D. Cal. July 

30, 2018) (Order Dismissing Second Amended Complaint for failing to state a 

claim) (strike two);

3) Jones v. Mailroom Officials, Civil Case No. 1:17-cv-00281-LJO-SKO (E.D. 

Cal. Jan. 9, 2019) (Order Adopting Findings and Recommendation to Dismiss 

Second Amended Complaint for failure/inability to state a claim) (strike three).

Accordingly, because Plaintiff has, while incarcerated, accumulated at least the three 

“strikes” permitted pursuant to § 1915(g), and he fails to make a “plausible allegation” that 

he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed his Complaint, he 

Case 3:19-cv-01436-BAS-KSC Document 3 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

19cv1436

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

is not entitled to the privilege of proceeding IFP in this action. See Cervantes, 493 F.3d at 

1055; Rodriguez, 169 F.3d at 1180 (finding that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) “does not prevent all 

prisoners from accessing the courts; it only precludes prisoners with a history of abusing 

the legal system from continuing to abuse it while enjoying IFP status”); see also Franklin 

v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1231 (9th Cir. 1984) (“[C]ourt permission to proceed IFP is 

itself a matter of privilege and not right.”).

CONCLUSION & ORDER

 For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby: 

(1) DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP (ECF No. 2) as barred by 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(g);

(2) DISMISSES this civil action sua sponte without prejudice for failure to 

prepay the $400 civil and administrative filing fees required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a).

The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 12, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-01436-BAS-KSC Document 3 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4