Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01476/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01476-0/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

3:19-cv-01476-GPC-MSB

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

MARTIN WARE,

CDCR #H-13103,

Plaintiff,

vs.

C. ARCHULETA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:19-cv-01476-GPC-MSB

ORDER:

1) DENYING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

AS BARRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) 

[ECF No. 2]

AND

(2) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR 

FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEE 

REQUIRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a)

Plaintiff, Martin Ware, currently incarcerated at Richard J. Donovan Correctional 

Facility (“RJD”), in San Diego, California, has filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Compl., ECF No. 1. He has not prepaid the full civil filing fee 

required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); instead, he has filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma 

Pauperis (“IFP”) (ECF No. 2).

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:19-cv-01476-GPC-MSB Document 6 Filed 10/03/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

3:19-cv-01476-GPC-MSB

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

I. Motion to Proceed IFP

A. Standard of Review

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

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 “monthly 

installments” or “increments” as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3)(b), the Prison 

Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) amended section 1915 to preclude the privilege to 

proceed IFP in cases where 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). “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). 

“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). 

When courts “review a dismissal to determine whether it counts as a strike, the style of the 

dismissal or the procedural posture is immaterial. Instead, the central question is whether 

Case 3:19-cv-01476-GPC-MSB Document 6 Filed 10/03/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

3:19-cv-01476-GPC-MSB

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

the dismissal ‘rang the PLRA bells of frivolous, malicious, or failure to state a claim.’” ElShaddai v. Zamora, 833 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Blakely v. Wards, 738 

F.3d 607, 615 (4th Cir. 2013)). “When ... presented with multiple claims within a single 

action,” however, courts may “assess a PLRA strike only when the case as a whole is 

dismissed for a qualifying reason under the Act.” Hoffman v. Pulido, 928 F.3d. 1147, 1152 

(9th Cir. 2019) (citing Washington v. L.A. Cty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 833 F.3d 1048, 1057 (9th 

Cir. 2016)).

Once a prisoner has accumulated three strikes, section 1915(g) prohibits his pursuit 

of any subsequent IFP civil action or appeal in federal court unless he faces “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.”).

B. Discussion

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Complaint and finds it contains no “plausible 

allegations” to 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)). Instead, as described 

above, Plaintiff seeks to sue RJD prison officials over constitutional violations that he 

alleges occurred in 2017. These claims fail to plausibly meet § 1915(g)’s exception for 

imminent danger. See Cervantes, 493 F.3d at 1055-56 (plaintiff must allege to face a real, 

proximate and/or ongoing danger at the time of filing).

And while Defendants typically carry the initial burden to produce evidence 

demonstrating a prisoner is not entitled to proceed IFP, Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1119, “in 

some instances, the district court docket may be sufficient to show that a prior dismissal 

satisfies at least one on the criteria under § 1915(g) and therefore counts as a strike.” Id. at 

1120. That is the case here.

A court may take judicial notice of its own records, see Molus v. Swan, Civil Case 

No. 3:05-cv-00452-MMA-WMc, 2009 WL 160937, *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2009) (citing 

United States v. Author Services, 804 F.2d 1520, 1523 (9th Cir. 1986)); Gerritsen v. 

Case 3:19-cv-01476-GPC-MSB Document 6 Filed 10/03/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

3:19-cv-01476-GPC-MSB

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

Warner Bros. Entm’t Inc., 112 F. Supp. 3d 1011, 1034 (C.D. Cal. 2015), and “‘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)).

Based on a review of court proceedings available on PACER, the Court finds that 

Plaintiff Martin Ware, identified as CDCR Inmate #H-13103, while incarcerated, has had 

at least four prior civil actions dismissed on the grounds that they were frivolous, malicious, 

or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

They are: 

(1) Ware v. Cambra, Civil Case No. 98-cv-0716 CRB PR (N.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 

1998) (Order dismissing complaint as duplicative/malicious) (strike one);

(2) Ware v. Terhune, Civil Case No. 98-cv-4874 CRB PR (N.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 

1999) (Order dismissing complaint for failing to state a claim) (strike two);

(3) Ware v. Pfeiffer, et al. Civil Case No. 16-cv-1531 AWI SAB (E.D. Cal. 

Sept. 25, 2017) (Order adopting findings and recommendations dismissing 

action for failure to comply with court order and failure to state a cognizable 

claim for relief) (strike three);

(4) Ware v. M. Bitter, et al. Civil Case No. 16-cv-1302 DAD SAB (E.D. Cal. 

Dec. 6, 2017) (Order adopting findings and recommendations and dismissing 

case for failure to state a claim) (strike four).

Accordingly, because Plaintiff has, while incarcerated, accumulated at least four 

“strikes” as defined by § 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 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”).

Case 3:19-cv-01476-GPC-MSB Document 6 Filed 10/03/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

3:19-cv-01476-GPC-MSB

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

II. Conclusion and Orders

 For the reasons set forth above, the Court: 

(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 failing to 

prepay the $400 civil and administrative filing fees required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); (3)

CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal from this Order would be frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a)(3); and (4) DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 3, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-01476-GPC-MSB Document 6 Filed 10/03/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5