Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00619/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00619-0/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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

FILED 

tm JUN I ~ AM 9: 5 

~~TR§~ 

!I't 741 DEI'tII¥ 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DAVID B. TURNER, Jr., 

Booking No. 15780644, 

vs. 

Plaintiff, 

GEORGE BAILEY DETENTION 

FACILITY, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No.: 3:16-cv-00619-BEN-KSC 

ORDER: 

1) DENYING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

AS BARRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) 

[ECFNo.2] 

AND 

(2) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR 

FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEE 

REQUIRED BY 28 U.S.c. § 1914(a) 

24 Plaintiff David B. Turner, Jr., currently incarcerated at George Bailey Detention 

25 Facility ("GBDF") in San Diego, California, has filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 

26 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No.1.) 

27 Plaintiff claims GBDF, the County of San Diego Sheriff's Department, the San 

28 Diego County Jail, the State of California, and an unidentified San Diego County Sheriff's 

1 

3; 16-cv-00619-BEN-KSC 

Case 3:16-cv-00619-BEN-KSC Document 3 Filed 06/14/16 Page 1 of 6
1 Deputy violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights on December 13, 2015, 

2 January 12, 2016, and January 14,2016, by subjecting him to "overcrowding," applying 

3 handcuffs too tightly, and by subj ecting him to "sexual harassment and intimidation" which 

4 caused him to "flashback [to] 12/3/13." (ECF No.1 at 2-5.Y Plaintiff seeks injunctive 

5 relief preventing the County "from continuing to deny" his rights, as well as $17 million 

6 in general and punitive damages for his pain and suffering. (Id. at 7.) 

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

8 instead, he has filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis ("IFP"). (ECF No.2.) 

9 L 

10 MOTION TO PROCEED IFP 

11 "[A] federal litigant who is too poor to pay court fees may proceed in forma 

12 pauperis. This means that the litigant may commence a civil action without prepaying fees 

13 or paying certain expenses." Coleman v. Tollefoon, 135 S. Ct. 1759, 1761 (2015). "All 

14 persons, not just prisoners, may seek IFP status." Moore v. Maricopa Cnty. Sheriff's 

15 Office, 657 F.3d 890, 892 (9th Cir. 2011). Prisoners, like Plaintiff, however, "face an 

16 additional hurdle." Id. In addition to requiring prisoners to "pay the full amount of a filing 

17 fee" in "monthly installments" as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2), Bruce v. Samuels, 

18 136 S. Ct. 627, 629 (2016), the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA") amended section 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

1915 to preclude the privilege to proceed IFP: 

[I]f [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 

I The Court takes judicial notice that Plaintiff has several other civil rights actions currently 

24 pending before this Court, most of which also involve claims of excessive force, the denial 

25 of medical care, and unconstitutional conditions of confinement against the City and 

County of San Diego and County Sheriffs Department officials, but arising during 

26 previous periods of arrest, detention, or incarceration in 2013. See, e.g., Turner v. San 

27 Diego Central Jail, No. 3:13-cv-1l33-WQH-BGS (S.D. Cal. May 10, 2013); Turner v. 

28 City of San Diego Police Dep't, No. 3: 13-cv-2124-DMS-JMA (S.D. Cal. Sept. 10,2013); 

Turner v. County of San Diego, No. 3:14-cv-2003-JAH-JLB (S.D. Cal. Aug. 25,2014). 

2 

3: 16-cv-00619-BEN-KSC 

Case 3:16-cv-00619-BEN-KSC Document 3 Filed 06/14/16 Page 2 of 6
1 

2 

to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, unless the prisoner is under 

imminent danger of serious physical injury. 

3 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). "This subdivision is commonly known as the 'three strikes' 

4 provision." Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1116 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005). 

5 "Strikes are prior cases or appeals, brought while the plaintiff was a 

6 prisoner, which were dismissed on the ground that they were frivolous, malicious, 

7 or fail [ ed] to state a claim." Id. at 1116 n.1 (internal quotations omitted). Once a 

8 prisoner has accumulated three strikes, he is prohibited by section 1915(g) from 

9 pursuing any other IFP action in federal court unless he can show he is facing 

10 "imminent danger of serious physical injury." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The objective 

11 of the PLRA is to further "the congressional goal of reducing frivolous prisoner 

12 litigation in federal court." Tierney v. Kupers, 128 FJd 1310, 1312 (9th Cir. 

13 1997). 

14 II. 

15 APPLICATION TO PLAINTIFF 

16 As an initial matter, the Court has carefully reviewed Plaintiff's Complaint and has 

17 ascertained that it does not contain "plausible allegations" which suggest he "faced 

18 'imminent danger of serious physical injury' at the time of filing." Andrews v. Cervantes, 

19 493 F.3d 1047,1055 (9th Cir. 2007) [hereinafter Cervantes] (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)). 

20 Instead, Plaintiff complains generally about overcrowding and having been subject to 

21 verbal sexual innuendo and harassment by unidentified GBDF officials during a strip 

22 search in December 2015 and again during a meal in January 2016. (ECF No.1 at 3-5.) 

23 Nothing in his Complaint plausibly suggests Plaintifffaced any danger of imminent serious 

24 physical injury when he filed his Complaint on March 10,2016. See Cervantes, 493 F.3d 

25 at 1053 ("[T]he availability of [§ 1915(g)'s imminent danger] exception turns on the 

26 conditions a prisoner faced at the time the complaint was filed, not at some earlier or later 

27 time."). 

28 A court "'may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without 

3 

3: 16-cv-00619-BEN-KSC 

Case 3:16-cv-00619-BEN-KSC Document 3 Filed 06/14/16 Page 3 of 6
1 the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue. '" 

2 Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212,1225 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 

3 285 F.3d 801,803 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002)). 

4 Thus, this Court takes judicial notice that Plaintiff, David B. Turner, Jr., currently 

5 identified as San Diego County Sheriffs Department Booking No. 15780644,2 has 

6 brought, while incarcerated, more than three prior civil actions and appeals which were 

7 dismissed on the grounds that they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim upon 

8 which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

9 They are: 

10 1) Turner v. Metro. Transit Sys., No. 3:09-cv-00770-AJB-KSC (S.D. Cal. Nov. 

11 11, 2009) (Order denying amended motion to proceed IFP and dismissing amended 

12 complaint for failing to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 

13 1915A(b)) (ECF No.6) (strike one); 

14 2) Turner v. Corporal Saunder (7294), No. 3:13-cv-01368-MMA-DHB (S.D. 

15 Cal. June 18, 20 13)(Order dismissing action as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) 

16 and denying motion to proceed IFP as moot) (ECF No.3) (strike two); 

17 3) Turnerv. County of San Diego, No. 3: 13-cv-02288-LAB-RBB (S.D. Cal. July 

18 11, 2014) (Order sua sponte dismissing First Amended Complaint for failing to state a 

19 claim and as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) & § 1915A(b)) (ECF No.7) 

20 (strike three);3 and 

21 

22 

23 

4) Turner v. County of San Diego, No. 3:13-cv-02729-JLS-PCL (S.D. Cal. Nov. 

2 A review of David B. Turner Jr.'s previous cases in PACER shows he has also been 

24 previously identified as CDCR Inmate No. G-30643 and as San Diego County Inmate 

25 Booking No. 13719099. 

3 Plaintiff filed an appeal ofthis Order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (ECF No. 

26 9.) The Ninth Circuit denied appellant's motion to proceed IFP because it found that 

27 "there [wa]s no non-frivolous issue presented in th[e] appeal." (ECF No. 13.) The 

28 appeal was later dismissed based on Plaintiffs failure to perfect his appeal. (ECF No. 

14.) 

4 

3: 16-cv-00619-BEN-KSC 

Case 3:16-cv-00619-BEN-KSC Document 3 Filed 06/14/16 Page 4 of 6
, , 

1 19, 2014) (Order granting IFP and sua sponte dismissing First Amended Complaint for 

2 failing to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and § 1915A(b )(1)) (ECF 

3 No. 13); (March 20, 2015 Order dismissing case in its entirety for failing to state a claim 

4 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and § 1915A(b)(I) and for failing to prosecute) 

5 (ECF No. 14) (strike four).4 

6 Accordingly, because Plaintiff has, while incarcerated, accumulated at least four 

7 "strikes" as defmed by § 1915(g), and he fails to make a "plausible allegation" that he faced 

8 imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed his Complaint, he is not 

9 entitled to the privilege of proceeding IFP in this action. See Cervantes, 493 F.3d at 1055; 

10 Rodriguezv. Cook, 169F.3d 1176, 1180 (9th Cir. 1999)(findingthat28U.S.C. § 1915(g) 

11 "does not prevent all prisoners from accessing the courts; it only precludes prisoners with 

12 a history of abusing the legal system from continuing to abuse it while enjoying IFP 

13 status"). 

14 III. 

15 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 

16 For the reasons set forth above, the Court: 

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

18 U.S.c. § 1915(g); 

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

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

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

22 therefore not taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). See Coppedge v. 

23 United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962); Gardner v. Pogue, 558 F.2d 548, 550 (9th Cir. 

24 

25 

26 4 Plaintiff appealed the dismissal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (ECF No. 16.) 

The Ninth Circuit denied appellant's motion to proceed IFP "because [it found] that the 

27 appeal [wa]s frivolous." (ECF No. 20.) The appeal was later dismissed based on 

28 Plaintiff's failure to perfect his appeal. (ECF No. 21.) 

5 

3: 16-cv-00619-BEN-KSC 

Case 3:16-cv-00619-BEN-KSC Document 3 Filed 06/14/16 Page 5 of 6
· . , . 

1 1977) (indigent appellant is permitted to proceed IFP on appeal only if appeal would not 

2 be frivolous). 

3 The Clerk shall close the file. 

4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

: Dot,d, Jun;Li 2016 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

6 

3: 16-cv-00619-BEN-KSC 

Case 3:16-cv-00619-BEN-KSC Document 3 Filed 06/14/16 Page 6 of 6