Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01724/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01724-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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 Granting Motion to Dismiss

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.05\Newman01724_grant-mtd.wpd

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES NEWMAN,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

M. McCLEAN, et al., 

Defendant(s).

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-01724 JW (PR)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS UNDER 28 U.S.C. §

1915(g); ADDRESSING PENDING

MOTIONS

(Docket Nos. 19, 20, 22, 23, 37, 40,

44, 45, 50, 51, and 54)

Plaintiff, a California prisoner currently incarcerated at the Corcoran State

Prison, filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging

deprivations of his constitutional rights secured by the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth

Amendments by various defendants while plaintiff was incarcerated at the Pelican

Bay State Prison (“PBSP”) in Crescent City, California. Specifically, plaintiff

alleges that defendants: 1) were negligent in failing to provide a ladder or stair step

for the upper bunk bed; 2) rendered inadequate medical care when he injured his left

knee while attempting to descend from the upper bunk bed; 3) deprived him of his

constitutional rights when they refused to process his administrative grievances; and

Case 5:05-cv-01724-JW Document 57 Filed 06/01/07 Page 1 of 7
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 Granting Motion to Dismiss

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.05\Newman01724_grant-mtd.wpd 2

4) retaliated and discriminated against him. This Court found the complaint,

liberally construed, stated cognizable claims under § 1983 and by order filed August

14, 2006, ordered defendants be served with the complaint. Plaintiff filed a motion

to proceed in forma pauperis which this Court granted. 

Defendants’ motion for extension of time to file dispositive motion (Docket

No. 23) is GRANTED. Accordingly, this Court accepts defendants’ motion to

dismiss the complaint (Docket No. 37) on the grounds that plaintiff is barred from

proceeding in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), as timely filed and

now addresses the merits of the motion. Plaintiff has filed an opposition. 

DISCUSSION

A. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)

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 or appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding under 28 U.S.C. §

1915 (i.e., may not proceed in forma pauperis) “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,

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). 

The plain language of the imminent danger clause in § 1915(g) indicates that

“imminent danger” is to be assessed at the time of filing, not at the time of the

alleged constitutional violations. See Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307, 312

Case 5:05-cv-01724-JW Document 57 Filed 06/01/07 Page 2 of 7
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 Granting Motion to Dismiss

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.05\Newman01724_grant-mtd.wpd 3

(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) (holding further that imminent danger must be shown

at time of filing notice of appeal to obtain IFP status on appeal). “Imminent danger”

may include an ongoing danger of serious physical injury. See Ashley, 147 F.3d at

717 (holding that plaintiff sufficiently alleged ongoing danger where he had

repeatedly been housed near enemies, despite his protests, and where he filed his

complaint very shortly after being attacked by an enemy); cf. Abdul-Akbar, 239

F.3d at 315 n.1 (while declining to reach question of whether “imminent danger”

encompasses an ongoing danger of serious physical injury, noting that the plaintiff’s

allegations of past acts of physical harassment were not sufficiently specific or

related to support an inference of an ongoing danger); Medberry, 185 F.3d at 1193

(finding no ongoing danger where plaintiff had been placed in administrative

segregation following physical assaults by fellow inmates and before he filed his

complaint).

A district court should liberally construe the allegations in a complaint filed

by a pro se prisoner facing a § 1915(g) bar, construing all allegations in favor of the

complainant and crediting those allegations of “imminent danger” that have gone

unchallenged. See McAlphin v. Toney, 281 F.3d 709, 710-11 (8th Cir 2002)

(liberally construing allegations in complaint for initial determination of whether

prisoner is in “imminent danger of serious physical injury”); Gibbs v. Cross, 160

F.3d 962, 966 (3d Cir. 1998) (same). Plaintiff has the burden of proving that he is in

imminent danger of serious physical injury. 

B. Plaintiff’s Prior “Strikes”

Defendants allege that plaintiff has filed, while incarcerated, at least three

actions or appeals that were dismissed as “strikes” under the PLRA three-strikes rule

Case 5:05-cv-01724-JW Document 57 Filed 06/01/07 Page 3 of 7
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 Granting Motion to Dismiss

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.05\Newman01724_grant-mtd.wpd 4

and is therefore barred from proceeding in forma pauperis on the instant complaint 

In support of this claim, defendants have provided a copy of the order issued by the

United States District Court, Southern District of California, in which plaintiff was

notified that he could not proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See

Newman v. Gonzalez, No. 00-CV-2283-J-CGA (S.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2001)

(hereinafter “Gonzalez 2001”). The district court counted the following three cases

as “strikes” under § 1915(g): 1) Newman v. Jensen, No. 96-CV-1905-UA (C.D. Cal.

Mar. 18, 1996) (denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing case as

frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)), affirmed by Newman v. Jensen, 127 F.3d

1105 (unpublished disposition) (9th Cir. 1997) (dismissing the appeal for failure to

state a claim upon which relief may be granted); 2) Newman v. Villa, No. 00-CV1407-W-JFS (S.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2000 & Sept. 11, 2000) (dismissing complaints

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for failing to state a claim); and 3) Newman v.

Gonzalez, No. 00-CV-1556-L-LSP (S.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2000 & Nov. 16, 2000)

(dismissing complaints under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for failing to state a claim)

(hereinafter “Gonzalez 2000”). Defendants assert that plaintiff has a total of four

strikes under § 1915(g) as the appeal to the Ninth Circuit was also dismissed for

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Newman v. Jensen,

127 F.3d 1105. 

Plaintiff argues that the case Newman v. Jensen, No. 96-CV-1905-UA,

should not be counted as a strike because the district judge in that case erred when

he allowed plaintiff to proceed on direct appeal in forma pauperis despite knowing

that the case lacked merit. This argument is without merit. The only relevant

inquiry of whether a case counts as a “strike” under § 1915(g) is whether it was

“dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Whether in forma

Case 5:05-cv-01724-JW Document 57 Filed 06/01/07 Page 4 of 7
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 Granting Motion to Dismiss

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.05\Newman01724_grant-mtd.wpd 5

pauperis status was properly granted in a case dismissed such grounds is irrelevant. 

The Newman v. Jensen case at bar counts as a strike because it was dismissed for

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under. See Newman v.

Jensen, 127 F.3d 1105. Furthermore, even if the judge had erred, which he did not,

plaintiff still has three other strikes against him for the purposes of § 1915(g), i.e., 

Newman v. Jensen, 127 F.3d 1105, Newman v. Villa, No. 00-CV-1407-W-JFS, and

Gonzalez 2000, No. 00-CV-1556-L-LSP.

Plaintiff’s argument that the PLRA’s three strikes rule does not apply to cases

before its enactment is without merit as it is well established that § 1915(g) requires

that this Court consider prisoner actions dismissed before, as well as after, the

statute’s 1996 enactment. Tierney, 128 F.3d at 1311-12. Therefore, Newman v.

Jensen, No. 96-CV-1905-UA, counts as a strike even though it was dismissed before

the statute’s enactment. 

This Court grants defendants’ request for judicial notice of the court

documents provided in support of the motion to dismiss on the grounds that plaintiff

is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). It is clear

from the respective orders of dismissal that plaintiff had three complaints dismissed

on the grounds that they failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted:

Newman v. Jensen was dismissed because plaintiff “fail[ed] to state a claim upon

which relief [m]ay be granted,” 127 F.3d at 1105; Newman v. Villa was “dismissed

with prejudice for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” No. 00-

CV-1407-W-JFS at 8; and Gonzalez 2000 was “dismissed... with prejudice... for

failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,” No. 00-CV-1556-L-LSP at

11. Plaintiff provides no evidence to the contrary. Therefore the instant complaint

must be dismissed pursuant to § 1915(g) unless plaintiff can show that he was in

imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time the complaint was filed. 

Case 5:05-cv-01724-JW Document 57 Filed 06/01/07 Page 5 of 7
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 Granting Motion to Dismiss

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.05\Newman01724_grant-mtd.wpd 6

C. Imminent Danger of Serious Physical Injury

Plaintiff has the burden of proving that he is in imminent danger of serious

physical injury at the time he filed the complaint. Plaintiff has failed to do so. The

incident that sparked the instant complaint was the injury to his left knee when he

fell from the upper bunk bed. Plaintiff admits that he had knee surgery in 2004 and

physical therapy treatment thereafter. (Pet. at 4.) In his opposition, plaintiff asserts

that due to the past injury, he continues to suffer constant and repeated pain

whenever he attempts to exercise and strengthen his knee. He also complains of

inadequate physical therapy and deficient treatment by the prison medical staff. 

These allegations, even if true, fail to demonstrate that plaintiff was in imminent

danger of physical injury at the time he filed the complaint. See Medberry, 185 F.3d

1189. Such chronic complaints from a past injury hardly amount to an “ongoing

danger” to permit plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis on the instant action. See

Abdul-Akbar, 239 F.3d at 315 n1. Having failed to meet his burden, plaintiff is not

entitled to the exception under § 1915(g) to avoid dismissal without prejudice by

defendants’ motion. Plaintiff may still pursue his claims if he pays the full filing fee

at the outset of the action. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above: 

1. Defendants’ motion for extension of time to file dispositive motion

(Docket No. 23) is GRANTED, and defendants’ timely filed motion to dismiss

(Docket No. 37) is GRANTED. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice to

refiling if plaintiff pays the filing fee. 

2. The order granting plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis entered

August 11, 2006, is vacated.

Case 5:05-cv-01724-JW Document 57 Filed 06/01/07 Page 6 of 7
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 Granting Motion to Dismiss

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.05\Newman01724_grant-mtd.wpd 7

3. Defendants’ motion for protective order staying discover (Docket No. 

40) is DISMISSED as moot. 

4. Plaintiff’s motion for court intervention to compel discovery (Docket 

No. 19), motions for default judgment (Docket Nos. 20 and 22), motion for

sanctions (Docket No. 44), amended motion for court intervention to compel

discovery and sanctions (Docket No. 45), motion for declaratory judgment (Docket

No. 51), and motion for evidentiary hearing (Docket No. 54) are DISMISSED as

moot. 

5. Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default against defendant Everett Allen 

(Docket No. 50) is DENIED for want of a showing that said defendant has been

served. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). 

This order terminates dockets 19, 20, 22, 23, 37, 40, 44, 45, 50, 51, and 54.

DATED: June 1, 2007 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge 

Case 5:05-cv-01724-JW Document 57 Filed 06/01/07 Page 7 of 7