Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-00125/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-00125-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES CARL KELLY,

Plaintiff,

v.

P. SULLIVAN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-00125-SI 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE. 

CONTEMPLATED DISMISSAL

Re: Dkt. No. 2

James Carl Kelly, an inmate at the Salinas Valley State Prison, filed this pro se civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Kelly has applied to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915. The action is now before the court for consideration of Kelly’s in forma pauperis

applications.

A prisoner may not bring a civil action in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 “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).

For purposes of a dismissal that may be counted under § 1915(g), the phrase “fails to state a 

claim on which relief may be granted” parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

12(b)(6) and carries the same interpretation, the word “frivolous” refers to a case that is “‘of little 

weight or importance: having no basis in law or fact,’” and the word “malicious” refers to a case 

“filed with the ‘intention or desire to harm another.’” Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th 

Case 3:19-cv-00125-SI Document 4 Filed 06/27/19 Page 1 of 3
2

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

Northern District of California

Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). Only cases within one of these three categories can be counted as 

strikes for § 1915(g) purposes, so the mere fact that Kelly has filed many cases in the federal courts 

does not warrant dismissal under § 1915(g). See id. Rather, dismissal of an action under § 1915(g) 

should only occur when, “after careful evaluation of the order dismissing an [earlier] action, and 

other relevant information, the district court determines that the action was dismissed because it was 

frivolous, malicious or failed to state a claim.” Id.

Andrews requires that the prisoner be given notice of the potential applicability of § 1915(g), 

by either the district court or the defendants, but also requires the prisoner to bear the ultimate burden 

of persuasion that § 1915(g) does not bar pauper status for him. Id. at 1120. Andrews implicitly 

allows the court to sua sponte raise the § 1915(g) problem, but requires the court to notify the 

prisoner of the earlier dismissals it considers to support a § 1915(g) dismissal and allow the prisoner 

an opportunity to be heard on the matter before dismissing the action. See id. A dismissal under 

§ 1915(g) means that a prisoner cannot proceed with his action as a pauper under § 1915(g), but he 

still may pursue his claims if he pays the full filing fee at the outset of the action.

A review of the dismissal orders in Kelly’s prior prisoner actions reveals that he has had at 

least three such cases dismissed on the grounds that they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state 

a claim upon which relief may be granted. The qualifying cases include: (1) Kelly v. Sao, E. D. Cal. 

No. 18-cv-484 DAD (dismissed for failure to state a claim); (2) Kelly v. Elit, E. D. Cal. No. 18-cv019 DAD (dismissed for failure to state a claim and failure to prosecute when plaintiff did not file 

an amended complaint curing deficiencies identified in his complaint); and (3) Kelly v. Gyorky, E. 

D. Cal. No. 11-cv-2142 WBS (dismissed for failure to state a claim).

In light of these dismissals, and because it does not appear that he was under imminent 

danger of serious physical injury when he filed this action, Kelly is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE 

in writing within thirty (30) days of this order, why his in forma pauperis application should not be 

denied and this action should not be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). In the alternative 

to showing cause why the action should not be dismissed, Kelly may avoid dismissal by paying the 

full $400.00 filing fee by the same deadline.

Case 3:19-cv-00125-SI Document 4 Filed 06/27/19 Page 2 of 3
3

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

Northern District of California

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 27, 2019

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-00125-SI Document 4 Filed 06/27/19 Page 3 of 3