Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01130/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01130-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:1651w All Writs Act

---

1

16-CV-1130-AJB-DHB

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

STEPHEN ULLRICH,

Petitioner,

v.

IDAHO STATE SUPREME COURT; 

CALIFORNIA STATE SUPREME 

COURT; UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

COURT BOISE, IDAHO; UNITED 

STATES DISTRICT COURT SAN 

DIEGO, CALIFORNIA; UNITED 

STATE COURT OF APPEALS,

Defendants.

Case No.: 16-CV-1130-AJB-DHB

ORDER 

(1) DENYING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

AS BARRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), 

(Doc. No. 2); AND 

(2) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR 

FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEE AS 

REQUIRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a)

Petitioner Stephen Ullrich (“Petitioner”), currently incarcerated at the Idaho State 

Correctional Institution in Boise, Idaho, has filed an incomprehensible petition for writ of 

mandamus requesting declaratory relief that “legal disabilities, [sic] frustrate, hinder, or 

chill his access to administrative and judicial grievances,” as well as injunctive relief 

granting him access to certain records. (Doc. No. 1 at 4.) He also seeks relief in the form 

of proceeding against Defendants for their allegedly wrongful dismissals of the multiple 

frivolous lawsuits he has filed. Petitioner has filed an application to proceed in forma 

pauperis (“IFP”) in this case to exempt him from prepaying the filing fee. (Doc. No. 2.)

Case 3:16-cv-01130-AJB-DHB Document 5 Filed 08/01/16 Page 1 of 5
2

16-CV-1130-AJB-DHB

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 Petitioner, however, “face 

an additional hurdle.” Id. That is, prisoners are required to “pay the full amount of a filing 

fee” in monthly installments or increments. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b); Bruce v. Samuels, 136 S. 

Ct. 627, 629 (2016); Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2015). However,

the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) amended § 1915 to preclude the privilege of 

proceeding 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 may be granted[.] 

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).

“‘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 fail[ed] to state a 

claim[,]” id., “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, § 

1915(g) prohibits him or her from pursuing any other IFP action in federal court unless he 

can show he is facing “imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time the action 

is instituted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 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).

DISCUSSION

As an initial matter, the Court has carefully reviewed Petitioner’s complaint and has 

determined that it does not contain any plausible allegationsto suggest he “faced ‘imminent 

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

1047, 1055 (9th Cir. 2007) [hereinafter Cervantes]. Instead, Petitioner appears to claim he 

Case 3:16-cv-01130-AJB-DHB Document 5 Filed 08/01/16 Page 2 of 5
3

16-CV-1130-AJB-DHB

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

is being denied access to the courts based on the dismissal of his prior lawsuits.1

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)). Accordingly, the Court judicially notices the fact 

that Petitioner, Stephen Ullrich, identified as Idaho Department of Corrections Inmate 

#56989, has had at least seven prior 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. Ullrich v. Idaho, Civil Case No. 1:05-cv-00340-LMB (D. Idaho Dec. 7, 2005) 

(order dismissing complaint for failing to state a claim per 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B) [Doc. No. 7]) (strike one);

2. Ullrich v. Barnhart, Civil Case No. 1:06-cv-00080-EJL (D. Idaho May 1, 2006) 

(initial review order denying IFP and dismissing complaint for failure to state a 

claim per 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) [Doc. No. 10]) (strike two);

3. Ullrich v. Canyon Cnty. Commr’s, Civil Case No. 1:06-cv-00095-EJL (D. Idaho 

May 30, 2006) (order dismissing complaint for failing to state a claim pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(2) [Doc. No. 6]) (strike three);

4. Ullrich v. Canyon Cnty., Civil Case No. 1:06-cv-00320-EJL (D. Idaho Oct. 16, 

2006) (initial review order dismissing case as legally frivolous pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) [Doc. No. 10]) (strike four);

5. Ullrich v. Prior, Civil Case No. 1:06-cv-00500-EJL (D. Idaho Jan. 31, 2007) 

(initial review order dismissing complaint for failure to state claims upon which 

relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) [Doc. No. 13]) (strike 

 

1 To the extent Petitioner seeks to challenge the constitutionality of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) 

because it has precluded his ability to proceed IFP in other cases, his access-to-courts claim

is foreclosed by the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1179–

81 (9th Cir. 1999) ( “§ 1915(g) does not infringe upon on inmate’s meaningful access to 

the courts”).

Case 3:16-cv-01130-AJB-DHB Document 5 Filed 08/01/16 Page 3 of 5
4

16-CV-1130-AJB-DHB

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

five);

6. Ullrich v. Idaho, Civil Case No. 1:07-cv-00440-BLW (D. Idaho April 28, 2008) 

(initial review order dismissing complaint for failure to state cognizable claims 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) [Doc. No. 8]) (strike six); and

7. Ullrich v. Idaho, Civil Case No. 1:08-cv-00076-BLW (D. Idaho June 16, 2008) 

(initial review order dismissing complaint as legally frivolous pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) [Doc. No. 7]) (noting that Petitioner had “filed at least 

twenty-six (26) civil lawsuits in the District of Idaho involving the same 

allegations arising out of his criminal conviction and alleged civil rights 

violations,” his “failure to prevail in any of them,” and previous unheeded 

warnings “to stop filing complaints involving previously litigated claims,” 

resulting in the issuance of a pre-filing review order in the District of Idaho) 

(strike seven).

Because Petitioner has, while incarcerated, accumulated more than 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 (“§ 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) (“court permission to proceed [IFP] is itself a matter of privilege and not right”).2

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion to proceed 

IFP, (Doc. No. 2), as barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); (2) DISMISSES this action 

 

2 The Court notes that Judge Benitez similarly dismissed a complaint filed by Petitioner for 

violation of § 1915(g). See Ullrich v. United States District Court Boise, Idaho, Civil Case 

No. 3:16-cv-01135-BEN-JLB (S.D. Cal. July 28, 2016) (Doc. No. 5).

Case 3:16-cv-01130-AJB-DHB Document 5 Filed 08/01/16 Page 4 of 5
5

16-CV-1130-AJB-DHB

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

WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to pay the full statutory and administrative $400 

civil filing fee as 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 in good faith pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). See Gardner v. Pogue, 558 F.2d 548, 551 (9th Cir. 1977) (indigent 

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

Failure to pay the filing fee by August 29, 2016, will result in this case’s closure. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 1, 2016

Case 3:16-cv-01130-AJB-DHB Document 5 Filed 08/01/16 Page 5 of 5