Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05644/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05644-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HOMER E. HAWKINS,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROBERT DOYLE, Marin County Sheriff; 

et al., 

Defendants. /

No. C 07-5644 SI (pr)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE.

CONTEMPLATED DISMISSAL

Homer E. Hawkins seeks to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 in

this action. 

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, 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 "filed with the 'intention or desire to harm another.'" Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d

Case 3:07-cv-05644-SI Document 5 Filed 03/04/08 Page 1 of 3
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

2

1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). Only cases within one of these three categories

can be counted as strikes for § 1915(g) purposes, so the mere fact that Hawkins has filed many

cases does not alone warrant dismissal under § 1915(g). See id. Rather, 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 Hawkins' prior prisoner actions in this court reveals

that Hawkins has had at least three such cases dismissed on the ground that they were frivolous,

malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Hawkins is now given

notice that the court believes the following dismissals may be counted as dismissals for purposes

of § 1915(g): (1) Hawkins v. Marin County Jail Commissioners, N. D. Cal. Case No. C 01-3288

SI (civil action dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted); (2)

Hawkins v. Oakland County Officer's Local Governing Bodi, N. D. Cal. Case No. C 02-4608

SI (civil action dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted); and (3)

Hawkins v. Marin Sheriff, N. D. Cal. Case No. C 03-2360 SI (civil rights action dismissed for

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted). The court made its evaluation of

these cases based on the dismissal orders in them. See Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1120 (sometimes

the docket records may be sufficient, and sometime the actual court files may need to be

consulted).

Case 3:07-cv-05644-SI Document 5 Filed 03/04/08 Page 2 of 3
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

3

In light of these dismissals, and because Hawkins does not appear to be under imminent

danger of serious physical injury, he is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing filed no later

than April 11, 2008 why in forma pauperis should not be denied and this action should not be

dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). In the alternative to showing cause why this action

should not be dismissed, Hawkins may avoid dismissal by paying the full $350.00 filing fee by

the deadline. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 4, 2008 _______________________

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-05644-SI Document 5 Filed 03/04/08 Page 3 of 3