Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00230/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00230-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 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

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES REGINALD COOKS, AT7962, 

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

SUPERVISOR, et al.,

Defendant(s). 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 16-0230 CRB (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

(Dkt. #10)

Plaintiff, a prisoner at California State Prison, Solano and frequent litigant

in federal court, filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging the

allegedly unlawful actions of a court clerk. Plaintiff also sought to proceed in

forma pauperis (IFP) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

On January 21, 2016, the court found that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) bars

plaintiff from proceeding IFP in this action because plaintiff: (1) has had three or

more prior prisoner actions dismissed by a federal district court on the grounds

that they are frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted; and (2) is not seeking relief from a danger of serious physical injury

which is imminent at the time of filing. Jan. 21, 2016 Order at 2 (citing cases).

Case 3:16-cv-00230-CRB Document 11 Filed 02/29/16 Page 1 of 2
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

Pursuant to the law of the circuit, plaintiff nonetheless was afforded an

opportunity to persuade the court that § 1915(g) does not bar IFP status for him. 

Id. (citing Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1120 (9th Cir. 2005)). The court

gave plaintiff 28 days to “show cause why § 1915(g) does not bar IFP status for

him,” and explained that “[f]ailure to show cause, or pay the requisite 

$ 400.00 filing fee, within the designated time will result in the dismissal of this

action without prejudice to bringing it in a new paid complaint.” Id.

Plaintiff has responded by filing an amended complaint and a new

prisoner’s application to proceed IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. But he in no way

shows in these filings, or anywhere else, that § 1915(g) does not bar IFP status

for him in this prisoner action. Plaintiff’s instant prisoner action accordingly is

DISMISSED without prejudice to bringing it in a paid complaint.

The clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with this order, terminate all

pending motions (see dkt. #10) as moot, and close the file. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: Feb. 25, 2016 CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\CRB\CR.16\Cooks, C.16-0230.dismissal.wpd 

Case 3:16-cv-00230-CRB Document 11 Filed 02/29/16 Page 2 of 2