Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02553/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02553-0/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-02553-JAH-BGS

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

HERBERT JOHNSON,

CDCR #P-60805,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Lt. H. FERREL, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:18-cv-02553-JAH-BGS

ORDER: 

1) DENYING PLAINTIFF LEAVE 

TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS AS BARRED BY 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) 

(ECF Nos. 2, 3)

AND 

2) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR 

FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEE 

REQUIRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a)

HERBERT JOHNSON (“Plaintiff”), currently incarcerated at Richard J. Donovan 

Correctional Facility (“RJD”) in San Diego, California, and proceeding pro se, has filed a 

civil rights Complaint. (See Compl., ECF No. 1.)

Plaintiff’s pleading is comprised of only one page that invokes jurisdiction pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and includes a caption listing the former Warden of RJD, several 

correctional officials, a doctor, and a librarian as Defendants. (Id. at 1.) But he includes no 

Case 3:18-cv-02553-JAH-BGS Document 5 Filed 01/31/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
2

3:18-cv-02553-JAH-BGS

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

facts or demand for relief whatsoever. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) (“A pleading that states a 

claim for relief must contain: ... (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that 

the pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief sought....”). 

Plaintiff has also not prepaid the civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); 

instead, he has submitted two copies of his Prisoner Trust Account Statements, which the 

Court construes to be a request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a).1(See ECF Nos. 2, 3.)

I. Request to Proceed IFP

A. Standard of Review

“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 “monthly installments” or “increments” as provided by 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a)(3)(b), Bruce v. Samuels, __ U.S. __, 136 S. Ct. 627, 629 (2016); 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).

 

1 “Courts have a duty to construe pro se pleadings liberally, including pro se motions as 

well as complaints.” Bernhardt v. Los Angeles County, 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003) 

(citing Zichko v. Idaho, 247 F.2d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir. 2001)). However, conclusory 

allegations unsupported by facts are insufficient to state a claim under section 1983. Jones 

v. Cmty. Redevelopment Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). “The plaintiff must 

allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in 

that support the plaintiff’s claim.” Id. (internal citation omitted).

Case 3:18-cv-02553-JAH-BGS Document 5 Filed 01/31/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
3

3:18-cv-02553-JAH-BGS

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

“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 

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

see also El-Shaddai v. Zamora, 833 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2016) (noting that when 

court “review[s] a dismissal to determine whether it counts as a strike, the style of the 

dismissal or the procedural posture is immaterial. Instead, the central question is whether 

the dismissal ‘rang the PLRA bells of frivolous, malicious, or failure to state a claim.’”) 

(quoting Blakely v. Wards, 738 F.3d 607, 615 (4th Cir. 2013)).

Once a prisoner has accumulated three strikes, he is prohibited by section 1915(g) 

from pursuing any other IFP civil action or appeal in federal court unless he alleges 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.”). 

B. Discussion

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

determined it does not contain any “plausible allegations” which suggest he “faced 

‘imminent danger of serious physical injury’ at the time of filing.” Cervantes, 493 F.3d at 

Case 3:18-cv-02553-JAH-BGS Document 5 Filed 01/31/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
4

3:18-cv-02553-JAH-BGS

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

1055 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)). In fact, Plaintiff’s Complaint contains no facts at all. 

See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“[T]he pleading standard Rule 8 

announces does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,’” but it nevertheless “demands 

more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me-accusation.”) (quoting Bell 

Atlantic Corp., v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). And while the Court “ha[s] an 

obligation where the petitioner is pro se, particularly in civil rights cases, to construe the 

pleadings liberally and to afford the petitioner the benefit of any doubt,” Hebbe v. Pliler, 

627 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026, 1027 n.1 

(9th Cir. 1985)), it may not “supply essential elements of claims that were not initially 

pled.” Ivey v. Board of Regents of the University of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 

1982).

The Court may, however, take judicial notice of its own records, see Molus v. Swan, 

Civil Case No. 3:05-cv-00452–MMA-WMc, 2009 WL 160937, *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 

2009) (citing United States v. Author Services, 804 F.2d 1520, 1523 (9th Cir. 1986)); 

Gerritsen v. Warner Bros. Entm’t Inc., 112 F. Supp. 3d 1011, 1034 (C.D. Cal. 2015), and 

“‘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)).

Based on a review of its own dockets and other court proceedings available on 

PACER, the Court finds that Plaintiff Herbert Johnson, identified as CDCR #P-60805, 

while incarcerated, has brought more than three prior civil actions and appeals 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) Johnson v. Deputy Malone, et al., Civil Case No. 2:10-cv-01611-GHKRNB (C.D. Cal. April 26, 2010) (Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) to 

Dismiss First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b)) (ECF No. 9); (C.D. Cal. June 4, 2010) 

(Order Adopting R&R) (ECF No. 11) (strike one);

Case 3:18-cv-02553-JAH-BGS Document 5 Filed 01/31/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
5

3:18-cv-02553-JAH-BGS

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

2) Johnson v. Walker, et al., Civil Case No. 3:12-cv-00841-LAB-RBB 

(S.D. Cal. June 26, 2012) (Order Dismissing Civil Action as Frivolous 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) and Denying Motion to Proceed IFP as 

Moot) (ECF No. 11) (strike two);

3) Johnson v. Walker, et al., Civil Case No. 3:12-cv-01837-CAB-BGS 

(S.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2012) (Order Dismissing Civil Action as Frivolous 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)) (ECF No. 18) (strike three); and 

4) Johnson v. Millard, et al., Civil Case No. 3:11-cv-01691-JAH-NLS 

(S.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2012) (Orders Adopting R&Rs to Grant Defendants’ 

Motions to Dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(b)(6)) (ECF Nos. 37, 38); (S.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2013) (Order Dismissing 

Action) (ECF No. 41)) (strike four).2

Accordingly, because Plaintiff has, while incarcerated, accumulated more than three

“strikes” as defined by § 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.”).3

 

2 See Harris v. Mangum, 863 F.3d 1133, 1143 (9th Cir. 2017) (“A prisoner may not avoid 

incurring strikes simply by declining to take advantage of [an] opportunity to amend.”).

3 Plaintiff has filed two other civil rights actions in the Southern District in which he was 

also denied leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Johnson v. Paramo, 

et al., Civil Case No. 3:16-cv-00723 BEN (RBB) (S.D. Cal. July 18, 2016) (Order Denying 

Motions to Proceed IFP and to Appoint Counsel as barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and 

Dismissing Civil Action for Failure to Pay Filing Fee as Required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a)) 

(ECF No. 5); and Johnson v. CDC Medical, et al., Civil Case No. 3:13-cv-2498-JLS-BLM 

(S.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2013) (Order Denying Motion to Proceed IFP as Barred by 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(g) and Dismissing Case for Failure to Pay Filing Fee as Required by 28 U.S.C. 

Case 3:18-cv-02553-JAH-BGS Document 5 Filed 01/31/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
6

3:18-cv-02553-JAH-BGS

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. Conclusion and Order

 For the reasons set forth above, the Court: 

(1) DENIES Plaintiff leave to Proceed IFP (ECF Nos. 2, 3) as barred by 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(g);

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

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

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

therefore, not taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); and

(4) DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 31, 2019

Hon. John A. Houston

United States District Judge

 

§ 1914(a)) (ECF No. 4). And while Plaintiff appealed Judge Sammartino’s Order in Civil 

Case No. 3:13-cv-2498-JLS-BLM, the Ninth Circuit denied Plaintiff leave to proceed IFP 

on appeal “because the USDC correctly determined that appellant has had three or more 

prior action or appeals dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted.” (ECF No. 9) (USCA Case No. 13-57086).

Case 3:18-cv-02553-JAH-BGS Document 5 Filed 01/31/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6