Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00614/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00614-0/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

3:19-cv-00614-WQH-AGS

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

ROBERT HATCHER,

Inmate Booking No. 19705701,

Plaintiff,

v.

SONIA MARTINEZ; LISA MINNICK; 

CASEY MONAHAN; MELISSA 

ZAVALA; OFFICER JENCEN; DREW 

GARRISON; JOSHUA BRISBANE,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:19-cv-00614-WQH-AGS

ORDER:

(1) DENYING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

AS BARRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) 

[ECF No. 2]

(2) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR 

FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEE 

REQUIRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a)

Plaintiff, Robert Hatcher, currently housed at the San Diego Central Jail, has filed a 

civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff has not prepaid 

the full civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); instead, he has filed a Motion to 

Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF No. 2). 

I. Motion to Proceed IFP

“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,” however, “face an 

Case 3:19-cv-00614-WQH-AGS Document 3 Filed 04/10/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

3:19-cv-00614-WQH-AGS

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

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 §

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) (hereafter 

“Andrews”). 

“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”) (stating that 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). 

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

any other IFP action in federal court unless he can show he is facing “imminent danger of 

serious physical injury.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Cervantes, 493 F.3d at 1051–52 (noting 

Case 3:19-cv-00614-WQH-AGS Document 3 Filed 04/10/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

3:19-cv-00614-WQH-AGS

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

§ 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”).

II. Application to Plaintiff

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Complaint, which contains allegations of 

discrimination by the Defendants against “Black Indians,” in connection with a purchase 

or attempted purchase of shirts using clothing vouchers. (ECF No. 1 at 3). The Complaint 

does not contain “plausible allegations” which suggest Plaintiff “faced ‘imminent danger 

of serious physical injury’ at the time of filing.” Cervantes, 493 F.3d at 1055 (quoting 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(g)). 

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)); see also United States ex rel. Robinson Rancheria 

Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992). 

This Court takes judicial notice that Plaintiff, while incarcerated, has brought at least

three prior civil actions that 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); see also Harris v. Mangum, 863 F.3d 1133, 1143 (9th Cir. 2017) (“[W]e hold that 

when (1) a district court dismisses a complaint on the ground that it fails to state a claim, 

(2) the court grants leave to amend, and (3) the plaintiff then fails to file an amended 

complaint, the dismissal counts as a strike under § 1915(g).”).

 They are: 

1) Hatcher v. Aurthur, et al., Civil Case No. 3:18-cv-00491-LAB-KSC (S.D. 

Cal. Mar. 31, 2018) (denying motion to proceed IFP and dismissing civil

action brought pursuant to § 1983, which sought to bring “criminal charges” 

against two Indiana residents and Michelle Obama, the First Lady of the 

United States, as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)) (strike 

Case 3:19-cv-00614-WQH-AGS Document 3 Filed 04/10/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

3:19-cv-00614-WQH-AGS

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

one);

2) Hatcher v. Monahan, Civil Case No. 3:18-cv-00492-CAB-KSC (S.D. Cal. 

June 14, 2018) (dismissing civil action brought pursuant to § 1983 as failing

to set forth factual allegations, failing to state an excessive force claim, and

failing to prosecute in that no amended complaint was filed after the court 

granted leave to amend) (strike two); and

3) Hatcher v. Dr. Blake, et al., Civil Case No. 3:18-cv-00561-MMA-MDD (S.D. 

Cal. July 17, 2018) (dismissing civil action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1331 and Bivens as failing to set forth factual allegations; failing to state a 

claim against medical staff based on his “right to medical care,” right to be 

free of “cruel and unusual punishment,” and state court pleadings requesting 

the medical staff be held in contempt for discriminating against him as a 

Blackfoot Indian; and for failing to prosecute in that no amended complaint 

was filed after the court granted leave to amend) (strike three).

Accordingly, because Plaintiff has, while incarcerated, accumulated at least three 

“strikes” within the meaning of § 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 proceed 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”).

III. Conclusion and Order

 For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby: 

(1) DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 2) as barred by 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(g);

Case 3:19-cv-00614-WQH-AGS Document 3 Filed 04/10/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

3:19-cv-00614-WQH-AGS

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) 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). 

The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 10, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-00614-WQH-AGS Document 3 Filed 04/10/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5