Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00025/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00025-1/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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LONNIE WILLIAMS,

CDCR #T-54378

Civil No. 12cv0025 AJB (WMc)

Plaintiff, ORDER:

(1) DENYING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

AS BARRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)

[ECF No. 4] 

AND 

(2) DISMISSING CASE FOR

FAILURE TO PAY FILING 

FEE REQUIRED BY 

28 U.S.C. § 1914(a)

vs.

DANIEL PARAMO, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff, a state inmate currently incarcerated at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional

Facility (“RED”) located in San Diego, California and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has not prepaid the civil filing fee required by 28

U.S.C. § 1914(a); instead, he has submitted a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”)

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) [ECF No. 4].

/ / /

/ / /

K:\COMMON\BATTAGLI\DJ CASES\2 Orders to be filed\12cv0025-Deny-IFP-1915(g).wpd -1- 12cv0025 AJB (WMc)

Case 3:12-cv-00025-AJB-WMC Document 6 Filed 03/28/12 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

27

28

I. Motion to Proceed IFP

Section 1915 of Title 28 of the United States Code allows certain litigants to pursue civil

litigation IFP, that is, without the full prepayment of fees or costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). 

However, the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) amended section 1915 to preclude the

privilege to proceed IFP:

. . . 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 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) (hereafter “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). 

“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 1051-52 (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.”).

/ / /

K:\COMMON\BATTAGLI\DJ CASES\2 Orders to be filed\12cv0025-Deny-IFP-1915(g).wpd -2- 12cv0025 AJB (WMc)

Case 3:12-cv-00025-AJB-WMC Document 6 Filed 03/28/12 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

27

28

II. Application of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)

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

ascertained that there is no “plausible allegation” to suggest Plaintiff “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 has had three prisoner civil actions dismissed on the grounds that

they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.1

 They are: 

1) Williams v. Corcoran State Prison, et al., Civil Case No. 01-5926 AWI (HBG)

(E.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2002 Order Adopting Findings and Recommendation

Dismissing Action for failing to state a claim) (strike one);

2) Williams v. Wood, et al., Civil Case No. 01-6151 REC (LJO) (E.D. Cal. Feb. 28,

2002 Order Adopting Findings and Recommendation Dismissing Action for

failing to state a claim) (strike two); and

3) Williams v. Rendon, et al., Civil Case No. 01-5891 AWI (SMS) (E.D. Cal. Mar.

18, 2002 Order Adopting Findings and Recommendations Dismissing Complaint

for failing to state a claim) (strike three).

Accordingly, because Plaintiff has, while incarcerated, accumulated three “strikes”

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 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

1

 In fact, a review of PACER reveals that Plaintiff has filed over sixty (60) civil rights actions

in the Central, Eastern and Southern Districts of California.

K:\COMMON\BATTAGLI\DJ CASES\2 Orders to be filed\12cv0025-Deny-IFP-1915(g).wpd -3- 12cv0025 AJB (WMc)

Case 3:12-cv-00025-AJB-WMC Document 6 Filed 03/28/12 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

27

28

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.”).

III. Conclusion and Order

 For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby:

1) DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP [ECF No. 4] pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g);

2) DISMISSES this action without prejudice for failure to pay the $350 civil filing

fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), and

3) CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal from this Order would be frivolous and therefore,

would not be taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). See Coppedge v. United

States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962); Gardner v. Pogue, 558 F.2d 548, 550 (9th Cir. 1977)

(indigent appellant is permitted to proceed IFP on appeal only if appeal would not be frivolous).

The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 28, 2012

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. District Judge

K:\COMMON\BATTAGLI\DJ CASES\2 Orders to be filed\12cv0025-Deny-IFP-1915(g).wpd -4- 12cv0025 AJB (WMc)

Case 3:12-cv-00025-AJB-WMC Document 6 Filed 03/28/12 Page 4 of 4