Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-03283/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-03283-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\CR.08\Magee3445_osc1915g.wpd

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RUCHELL CINQUE MAGEE,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

FLORES, et al.,

Defendant(s).

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 08-3445 JF (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Plaintiff, a California inmate, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has not paid the filing fee and has applied for

leave to proceed in forma pauperis. This suit is subject to dismissal for the reasons

set forth below. 

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”) was enacted, and

became effective, on April 26, 1996. It provides that 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,

Case 5:08-cv-03283-JF Document 7 Filed 08/22/08 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\CR.08\Magee3445_osc1915g.wpd 2

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 “failed with the

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

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

counted as strikes for § 1915(g) purposes. See id. 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. 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. at

1120. 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 Plaintiff’s prior prisoner actions reveals

that Plaintiff has had at least three such cases dismissed on the grounds that they

Case 5:08-cv-03283-JF Document 7 Filed 08/22/08 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1

An in forma pauperis complaint that merely repeats pending or previously

litigated claims may be considered abusive and dismissed under § 1915. Cato v.

United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995)

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\CR.08\Magee3445_osc1915g.wpd 3

were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted. Plaintiff was previously the subject of a pre-filing order. See Magee v.

Marshall, No. C-93-3637 DLJ (pre-filing order filed May 10, 1995 at p. 3 n.2.) 

Moreover, this Court has reviewed the orders of dismissal in the following cases: C93-3507 DLJ (PR)(docket no. 4; filed June 9, 1994, dismissed res judicata)1

; C-93-

3638 DLJ (PR) (docket no. 5; filed June 9, 1994, dismissed for failure to state a

claim/frivolous; C-94-3815 DLJ (PR) (docket no. 5; filed March 17, 1995 dismissed

as malicious); C-95-3855 DLJ (PR) (docket no. 3; filed May 23, 1996, dismissed as

malicious); C-94-1786 SBA (PR) (docket no. 7; filed November 7, 1994, dismissed

based on defendant’s immunity from suit); C-94-4298 DLJ (PR) (docket no. 2; filed

March 16, 1995, dismissed as malicious); and C-95-2520 DLJ (PR) (docket no. 3;

filed July 20, 1995, dismissed as malicious/duplicative). Plaintiff is now given

notice that each of the above cases reviewed by this Court constitutes a dismissals

for purposes of § 1915(g). 

In light of these dismissals, and because Plaintiff was not under imminent

danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed the instant complaint, the court

now orders Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE why this action should not be dismissed

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff’s response to this order to show cause is

due no later than thirty (30) days from the date this order is filed. The response

must clearly be labeled “RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE.” 

Although the court has listed seven dismissals, only three prior dismissals

need to qualify under § 1915(g). In the alternative to showing cause why this action

should not be dismissed, Plaintiff may avoid dismissal by paying the full filing fee

by the deadline. 

FAILURE TO FILE A RESPONSE TO THIS ORDER AS DESCRIBED

ABOVE OR TO PAY THE FULL FILING FEE WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS

Case 5:08-cv-03283-JF Document 7 Filed 08/22/08 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\CR.08\Magee3445_osc1915g.wpd 4

OF THE DATE THIS ORDER IS FILED WILL RESULT IN THE

DISMISSAL OF THIS ACTION WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE TO

PLAINTIFF.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge 

8/21/08

Case 5:08-cv-03283-JF Document 7 Filed 08/22/08 Page 4 of 4