Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01339/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01339-0/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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ALBERT GLENN, 

CDCR #C-65516, 

UNKNOWN, 

vs. 

Plaintiff, 

Defendants. 

Civil No. 15cv1339 BEN (DHB) 

ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL 

ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

FOR FAILING TO PAY FILING 

FEE REQUIRED BY 

28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) 

18 Plaintiff Albert Glenn, a prisoner currently incarcerated at California State 

19 Prison in Lancaster, California ("LAC"), has filed an almost completely illegible 

20 pleading which, as far as the Court can decipher, contains acts of retaliation and 

21 unprofessional misconduct committed by unidentified prison officials at unspecified 

22 times and occurring at both LAC and Calipatria State Prisons. (Docket No.1, Compl. 

23 at 1,4.) 

24 Because Plaintiff is proceeding without counsel, the Court has liberally 

25 construed Plaintiffs pleading as an attempt to commence a civil action pursuant to 42 

26 U.S.C. § 1983. See Karim-Panahi v. L.A. Police Dept., 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 

27 1988) (where a plaintiff appears in propria persona, the Court must construe his 

28 pleadings liberally and afford plaintiff any benefit of the doubt). 

-1- 15cv1339 BEN (DHB) 

Case 3:15-cv-01339-BEN-DHB Document 2 Filed 09/24/15 Page 1 of 5
1 I. Failure to Pay Filing Fee or Request IFP Status 

2 All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of 

3 the United States, other than a writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $400. 1 

4 See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a party's failure to pay only 

5 if the party is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") pursuant to 28 

6 U.S.C. § 1915(a).SeeRodriguezv. Cook, 169F.3d 1176, 1177 (9thCir. 1999). 

7 Plaintiff has not prepaid the $400 in filing and administrative fees required to 

8 commence this action, nor has he submitted a Motion to Proceed IFP. Therefore, his 

9 case is subject to immediate dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). And while the 

10 Court would ordinarily grant him leave to file an IFP motion pursuant 28 U.S.C. 

11 § 1915(a), it finds, for the reasons set out below, that doing so would be futile since 

12 Plaintiff is no longer entitled to that privilege. 

13 II. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)'s "Three-Strikes" Bar 

14 "All persons, not just prisoners, may seek IFP status." Moore v. Maricopa 

15 Cnty. Sheriff's Office, 657 F.3d 890, 892 (9th Cir. 2011). "Prisoners," however, "face 

16 an additional hurdle." Id. In addition to requiring prisoners to "pay the full amount of 

17 a filing fee" in installments as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3)(b), the Prison 

18 Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA") amended section 1915 to preclude the privilege to 

19 proceed IFP in cases where the prisoner: 

20 

21 

22 

23 

... has, on 3 or more prior occasionsl while incarcerated or 

detained in any facility, brought an actIOn or appeal in a court 

of the United States tliat 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' 

24 

provision." Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1116 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005). "Pursuant to § 

25 

26 

I In addition to the $350 statutory fee, all parties filing civil actions on or after 

27 May 1,2013, must pay an additional administrative fee of$50. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), 

(b);" Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees I District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, eff. May 28 1, ~013. However, the additional $50 aaministrative fee is waived if the plaintiff is 

granted leave to proceed IFP. Id. 

-2- IScv 1339 BEN (DHB) 

Case 3:15-cv-01339-BEN-DHB Document 2 Filed 09/24/15 Page 2 of 5
1 1915(g), a prisoner with three strikes or more cannot proceed IFP." fd.; see also 

2 Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2007) (under the PLRA, 

3 "[p ]risoners who have repeatedly brought unsuccessful suits may entirely be barred 

4 from IFP status under the three strikes rule[.]"). The objective of the PLRA is to 

5 further "the congressional goal of reducing frivolous prisoner litigation in federal 

6 court." Tierney v. Kupers, 128 F.3d 1310,1312 (9th Cir. 1997). 

7 "Strikes are prior cases or appeals, brought while the plaintiff was a prisoner, 

8 which were dismissed on the ground that they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to 

9 state a claim," King, 398 F.3d at 1116 n.l (internal quotations omitted), "even if the 

10 district court styles such dismissal as a denial of the prisoner's application to file the 

11 action without prepayment of the full filing fee." O'Neal v. Price, 531 F.3d 1146, 

12 1153 (9th Cir. 2008). Once a prisoner has accumulated three strikes, he is prohibited 

13 by section 1915(g) from pursuing any other IFP action in federal court unless he can 

14 show he is facing "imminent danger of serious physical injury." See 28 U.S.C. 

15 § 1915(g); Cervantes, 493 F.3d at 1051-52 (noting section 1915(g)'s exception for 

16 IFP complaints which "make[] a plausible allegation that the prisoner faced 

17 'imminent danger of serious physical injury' at the time of filing."). 

18 III. Application to Plaintiff's Case 

19 As an initial matter, the Court has reviewed Plaintiff's pleading and has 

20 ascertained that it contains no "plausible allegation" to suggest Plaintiff faced 

21 imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time of filing. See Cervantes, 493 

22 F.3d at 1055. While far from clear, it appears Plaintiff seeks to challenge the 

23 "professional[ism] of staff," and unspecified acts of retaliation "driven by 

24 homosexual wardens." (Compl. at 3.) 

25 Additionally, even if Plaintiff had filed a motion to proceed IFP, the Court 

26 notes that Plaintiff is not entitled to the IFP privilege. 

27 A court "'may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and 

28 without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to 

-3- 15cv1339 BEN (DHB) 

Case 3:15-cv-01339-BEN-DHB Document 2 Filed 09/24/15 Page 3 of 5
1 matters at issue.''' Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1225 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting 

2 Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d 801,803 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002)); see also United 

3 States ex reI. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244,248 

4 (9th Cir. 1992). 

5 Thus, this Court takes judicial notice that Plaintiff Albert Glenn, CDCR Inmate 

6 #C-65516, has had at least three prior civil actions or appeals dismissed on the 

7 grounds that they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which 

8 relief may be granted. They include: 

9 (1) Glenn v. Fox, Central Dist. Cal. Civil Case No. 2:02-cv-09126-UA-MLG 

10 

11 

(Dec. 20, 2002) (Order denying IFP and dismissing case based on 

absolute judicial immunity? (Doc. No.2) (strike one); 

12 (2) Glenn v. Johnson, Central Dist. Cal. Civil Case No. 2:03-cv-00664-UA13 MLG (Feb. 10,2003 Order denying IFP and dismissing complaint for 

14 lack of jurisdiction) (Doc. No.2), and (Aug. 5,2003 Order denying leave 

15 

16 

to appeal IFP, certifying that appeal would be frivolous pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3)) (Doc. No.6) (strike two); and 

17 (3) Glenn v. Ryan, Southern Dist. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:03-cv-00414-L-POR 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

(May, 9, 2003 Order denying IFP and dismissing action for failing to 

state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) (Doc. No.3), and 

(Nov. 19,2003 Certified copy of judgment, Ninth Circuit Court Appeal 

No. 03-56288, Order dismissing appeal for lack of jurisdiction) (Doc. 

No. 11)(strike three). 

23 Accordingly, because Plaintiff has, while incarcerated, already accumulated 

24 three "strikes" as defined by section 1915(g), and he fails to make a plausible 

25 allegation that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed 

26 

27 2 When absolute immunity applies, claims for damages are frivolous. See Baker 

28 v. King Cnty. Prosecutor's Of,fice", 981 F.2d 1257 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Mullis v. u.s. 

Banki'. Court, 828 F.2d 1385; 13~4 (9th Cir. 1987) (finding claims for dalllages against federal judge entitled to absolutely Immunity patently frivolous). 

-4- 15cv1339 BEN (DHB) 

Case 3:15-cv-01339-BEN-DHB Document 2 Filed 09/24/15 Page 4 of 5
· . 

1 this case, he is not entitled to the privilege of proceeding IFP. See Cervantes, 493 

2 F.3d at 1055; Rodriguez, 169 F.3d at 1180 (noting that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) "does not 

3 prevent all prisoners from accessing the courts; it only precludes prisoners with a 

4 history of abusing the legal system from continuing to abuse it while enjoying IFP 

5 status"); see also Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1231 (9th Cir. 1984) ("[C]ourt 

6 permission to proceed IFP is itself a matter of privilege and not right."). 

7 IV. Conclusion and Order 

8 For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby: 

9 (1) DISMISSES this action sua sponte without prejudice for failing to 

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

11 (2) CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal from this Order would be frivolous and 

12 therefore, not taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). See Coppedge 

13 v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962); Gardner v. Pogue, 558 F.2d 548,550 (9th 

14 Cir. 1977) (indigent appellant is permitted to proceed IFP on appeal only if appeal 

15 would not be frivolous). 

16 The Clerk shall close the file. 

17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

18 

19 DATED: September t2. 2015 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

-5- 15cv1339 BEN (DHB) 

Case 3:15-cv-01339-BEN-DHB Document 2 Filed 09/24/15 Page 5 of 5