Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00371/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00371-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTOLIN ANDREWS MARKS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-0371 MCE GGH P

vs.

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER TAPIA,

et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a former state prisoner, is evidently detained in Tacoma, Washington by

the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (BICE). Although he purports to be within

the jurisdiction of this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, among the many defects of this

complaint, plaintiff has not made the requisite showing with respect to the amount in

controversy. The court will construe his complaint as one brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff has requested authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. This

proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g):

In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a

judgment in a civil action or proceeding under this section 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

Case 2:07-cv-00371-MCE -GGH Document 4 Filed 06/26/07 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

The court takes judicial notice of Andrews v. Grannis, CIV S-03-1785 EJG DAD P, 1

wherein this strike is set forth. (Judicial notice may be taken of court records. Valerio v. Boise

Cascade Corp., 80 F.R.D. 626, 635 n.1 (N.D. Cal. 1978), aff’d, 645 F.2d 699 (9th Cir.), cert. denied,

454 U.S. 1126 (1981)). 

 A dismissal without prejudice, pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S. Ct. 2

2364 (1994), constitutes a dismissal for failure to state a claim. See Butterfield v. Bail, 120 F.3d

1023, 1025 (9th Cir. 1997)(dismissal for failure to state a claim where prisoner not able to state a

cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, pursuant to Heck, supra).

2

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.

“[T]he plain language of § 1915(g) requires that the court look at cases dismissed prior to the

enactment of the [Prison Litigation Reform Act] to determine when a prisoner has used his three

strikes.” Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1181 (9th Cir. 1999). 

In Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2005), the Ninth Circuit made clear

that it is not plaintiff’s initial, affirmative burden to show that he is not barred, under 28 U.S.C. §

1915(g), from proceeding in an action in forma pauperis. On the other hand, “once a prisoner has

been placed on notice of the potential disqualification under § 1915(g) by either the district court

or the defendant, the prisoner bears the ultimate burden of persuading the court that § 1915(g)

does not preclude IFP status.” [Emphasis added.] 

On February 14, 1994, plaintiff suffered a strike under the name of Wayne Ricky

Elston Rudder, in Rudder v. Vargas & Associates, Case No. 94 CIV 67 (D.D.C.). This court’s 1

case records also indicate that in Andrews v. Hafey, CIV S-01-2018 FCD JFM P, plaintiff’s

claim was dismissed as Heck-barred, i.e., for failure to state a claim, on August 12, 2002, which 2

was affirmed on appeal, on June 18, 2003. On March 11, 2003, in Andrews v. Carey, CIV S-02-

2395 FCD DAD P, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which

relief can be granted, which judgment was affirmed on appeal on March 8, 2004. Under another

name used by plaintiff, Antolin Patrick Wayne, in Wayne v. Supervisors of San Francisco

County, et al., No. C 03-0799 MMC (PR), 2003 WL 926715 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2003),

Case 2:07-cv-00371-MCE -GGH Document 4 Filed 06/26/07 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 This strike is also identified in Andrews v. Grannis, CIV S-03-1785 EJG DAD P. 3

3

“dismissed for failure to state a cognizable basis for relief,” specifically, for failure to state an

equal protection claim, on March 4, 2003.3

To the extent that plaintiff may claim that he was a civil detainee, not facing any

criminal charge, when any of the prior actions were filed, the Ninth Circuit would not deem such

actions strikes under § 1915(g); however, plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that he was

held in such detention without a pending criminal charge when he filed the actions above which

the court has identified as potential strikes. Andrews v. King, supra, at 1122. The court having

identified four potential strikes, all of which were dismissed long before the filing of this action

on February 23, 2007, the burden now shifts to plaintiff to demonstrate that at least two of these

cases do not constitute strikes. 

While there is an “imminent danger of serious physical injury” exception under

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), Canell v. Lightner, 143 F.3d 1210, 1212 (9th Cir. 1998), plaintiff’s

allegations, seeking money damages for alleged due process violations he suffered when certain

of his personal property was damaged during transport, do not meet the exception on the face of

it, as plaintiff must have alleged facts that demonstrate that he was “under imminent danger” at

the time of filing the complaint. Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307, 312-14 (3 Cir. rd

2001); Medberry v. Butler, 185 F.3d 1189, 1192-93 (11 Cir. 1999); Ashley v. Dilworth, 147 th

F.3d 715 (8th Cir.1998); Banos v. O'Guin, 144 F.3d 883, 884 (5th Cir.1998). Therefore,

plaintiff will be granted thirty days to demonstrate that he is entitled to in forma pauperis status

by showing that the potential strikes identified above do not constitute three or more strikes

under § 1915(g), or to pay the $350.00 filing fee. 

 Because plaintiff cannot yet proceed in this action, because he has neither paid the 

filing fee or been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the court need not proceed to

screen this complaint. 

Case 2:07-cv-00371-MCE -GGH Document 4 Filed 06/26/07 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

4

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to re-designate this case as a prisoner pro se,

rather than a pro se, case.

2. Plaintiff must demonstrate that at least two of the cases identified above as

potential strikes are not strikes under § 1915(g) which could bar plaintiff from proceeding in

forma pauperis, or pay the $350.00 filing fee in full, within thirty days;

DATED: 6/26/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

mark0371.bnf

Case 2:07-cv-00371-MCE -GGH Document 4 Filed 06/26/07 Page 4 of 4