Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00124/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00124-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

I 

t1 -- .---, 

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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DARYL GRAY, 

Booking #17171870, 

v. 

Plaintiff, 

WILLIAM GORE; BOARD OF 

SUPERVISORS; TELECARE CASE 

MANAGEMENT; TELECARE 

MENTAL DOCTOR; SHERIFF'S DEP'T 

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, 

Defendants. 

Case No.: 3:18-cv-0124-WQH-NLS 

ORDER: 

(1) DENYING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

AS BARRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) 

[ECF Doc. No. 2]; AND 

(2) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR 

FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEE 

REQUIRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); 

Plaintiff, Daryl Gray, currently housed at the San Diego Central Jail, has filed a civil 

rights Complaint ("Comp!.") pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiff 

has not prepaid the full civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § l 914(a); instead, he has 

filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis ("IFP") (ECF Doc. No. 2). 

26 I I I 

27 II I 

28 

3: 18-cv-0124-WQH-NLS 

Case 3:18-cv-00124-WQH-NLS Document 4 Filed 02/01/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
1 I. Motion to Proceed IFP 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

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

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.l (9th Cir. 2005) (hereafter 

"Andrews"). 

"Pursuant to§ 1915(g), a prisoner with three strikes or more cannot proceed IFP." 

16 Id.; see also Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2007) (hereafter 

17 "Cervantes") (under the PLRA, "[p]risoners who have repeatedly brought unsuccessful 

18 suits may entirely be barred from IFP status under the three strikes rule[.]"). The objective 

19 of the PLRA is to further "the congressional goal of reducing frivolous prisoner litigation 

20 in federal court." Tierney v. Kupers, 128 F.3d 1310, 1312 (9th Cir. 1997). "[S]ection 

21 1915(g)'s cap on prior dismissed claims applies to claims dismissed both before and after 

22 the statute's effective date." Id. at 1311. 

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

24 were dismissed on the ground that they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim," 

25 Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1116 n.l (internal quotations omitted), "even if the district court 

26 styles such dismissal as a denial of the prisoner's application to file the action without 

27 prepayment of the full filing fee." O'Neal v. Price, 531 F.3d 1146, 1153 (9th Cir. 2008). 

28 2 

3:18-cv-0124-WQH-NLS 

Case 3:18-cv-00124-WQH-NLS Document 4 Filed 02/01/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
1 Once a prisoner has accumulated three strikes, he is prohibited by section 19 l 5(g) from 

2 pursuing any other IFP action in federal court unless he can show he is facing "imminent 

3 danger of serious physical injury." See 28 U.S.C. § l 9 l 5(g); Cervantes, 493 F .3d at 1051-

4 52 (noting§ 1915(g)'s exception for IFP complaints which "make[] a plausible allegation 

5 that the prisoner faced 'imminent danger of serious physical injury' at the time of filing."). 

6 II. Application to Plaintiff 

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

8 ascertained that it does not contain "plausible allegations" which suggest he "faced 

9 'imminent danger of serious physical injury' at the time of filing." Cervantes, 493 F.3d at 

10 1055 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)). 

11 A court "'may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without 

12 the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue."' 

13 Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1225 (9th Cir. 2007) (quotingBennettv. Medtronic, Inc., 

14 285 F.3d 801, 803 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002)); see also United States ex rel. Robinson Rancheria 

15 Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971F.2d244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992). 

16 Thus, this Court takes judicial notice that Plaintiff, while incarcerated, has brought 

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

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

19 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The following are three prior civil actions brought by Plaintiff: 

20 1) Gray v. N. Grannis, et al., Civil Case No. 1 :07-cv-00893-AWI-DLB (E.D. 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2) 

3) 

Cal. June 23, 2008) (Order adopting Report and Recommendation dismissing 

Complaint for failing to state a claim) (strike one); 

Gray v. Risk Management Branch, et al., Civil Case No. 2:07-cv-06516-UASS (C.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2007) (Order Denying Motion to Proceed IFP on 

grounds action is legally and/or factually patently frivolous) (strike two); 

Gray v. Zachariah, et al., Civil Case no. 2:1 l-cv-00129-MCE-GGH (E.D. 

Cal. Aug. 8, 2011) (Order adopting Report and Recommendation dismissing 

3 

3: 18-cv-0124-WQH-NLS 

Case 3:18-cv-00124-WQH-NLS Document 4 Filed 02/01/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
.. T' \,-

1 action fqr ~ailing to state a claim) (strike three) 

2 Accordingly, becmi,§e Plaintiff has, while incarcerated, accumulated at least the three 

3 "strikes" permitted pursuant to § l 9 l 5(g), and he fails to make a "plausible allegation" that 

4 he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed his Complaint, he 

5 is not entitled to the privilege of proceeding IFP in this action. See Cervantes, 493 F.3d at 

6 1055; Rodriguez, 1.69 F.3d at 1180 (finding that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) "does not prevent all 

7 prisoners from accessing the courts; it only precludes prisoners with a history of abusing 

8 the legal system from continuing to abuse it while enjoying IFP status"); see also Franklin 

9 v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1231 (9th Cir. 1984) ("[C]ourt permission to proceed IFP is 

10 itself a matter of privilege and not right."). 

11 III. Conclusion and Order 

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

13 (1) DENIES Plaintiffs Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF Doc. No. 2) as barred by 28 

14 u.s.c. § 1915(g); 

15 (2) DISMISSES this civil action sua sponte without prejudice for failing to prepay 

16 the $400 civil and administrative filing fees required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). 

1 7 The Clerk shall close the file. 

18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

19 

20 Dated: 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Hon. William Q. Hayes 

United States District Judge 

4 

3:18-cv-0124-WQH-NLS 

Case 3:18-cv-00124-WQH-NLS Document 4 Filed 02/01/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4