Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02734/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02734-0/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

3:18-CV-2734-JLS-MDD

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

GARLAND A. JONES,

CDCR #F-47928,

Plaintiff,

v.

MRS. ELIZALDIE,

Defendant.

Case No.: 3:18-CV-2734-JLS-MDD

ORDER: (1) DENYING MOTION 

TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS AS BARRED BY 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(g); AND 

(2) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR 

FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEE 

REQUIRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a);

(ECF No. 2)

On December 4, 2018, Plaintiff, Garland A. Jones, a state inmate currently 

incarcerated at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”) located in San Diego, 

California, filed a civil rights Complaint (“Compl.”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF 

No. 1. Plaintiff has also filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”), ECF No. 2. 

After reviewing the Plaintiffs arguments and the law, the Court rules as follows. 

///

Case 3:18-cv-02734-JLS-MDD Document 4 Filed 01/23/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

3:18-CV-2734-JLS-MDD

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

LEGAL STANDARD

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

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 “increments” as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3)(b), Williams v. 

Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2015), the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) 

amended section 1915 to preclude the privilege to proceed IFP:

. . . if [a] 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). “[S]ection 

1915(g)’s cap on prior dismissed claims applies to claims dismissed both before and after 

the statute’s effective date.” Id. at 1311.

“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 

Case 3:18-cv-02734-JLS-MDD Document 4 Filed 01/23/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

3:18-CV-2734-JLS-MDD

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

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, section 1915(g) prohibits him 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 

section 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”).

ANALYSIS

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

ascertained that it does not contain “plausible allegations” which 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)). 

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, while incarcerated, has brought 

at least three prior civil actions which were dismissed on the grounds that they were 

frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(g). They are: 

1) Jones v. Tolson, et al., Civil Case No. 1:15-cv-01037-MJS (PC) (E.D. Cal. 

Sept. 14, 2015) (Order Dismissing Action with prejudice for failing to state a claim) 

(strike one);

2) Jones v. Tiscornia, et al., Civil Case No. 3:18-cv-00544-GPC-PCL (S.D. Cal. 

July 30, 2018) (Order Dismissing Second Amended Complaint for failing to state a 

claim) (strike two);

3) Jones v. Mailroom Officials, et al., Civil Case No. 1:17-cv-00281-LJO-SKO 

Case 3:18-cv-02734-JLS-MDD Document 4 Filed 01/23/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

3:18-CV-2734-JLS-MDD

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

(E.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2019) (Order Adopting Findings and Recommendation to Dismiss 

Second Amended Complaint for failure/inability to state a claim) (strike three).

Accordingly, because Plaintiff has, while incarcerated, accumulated at least the three 

“strikes” permitted 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 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.”).

CONCLUSION

 For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby: 

(1) DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP, ECF No. 2, as barred by 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(g);

(2) DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE this civil action sua sponte for 

failing to prepay the $400 civil and administrative filing fees required by 28 U.S.C. § 

1914(a).

The Clerk of Court shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 23, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-02734-JLS-MDD Document 4 Filed 01/23/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4