Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03851/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03851-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

RUCHELL CINQUE MAGEE, 

Plaintiffs,

 v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL FLORES, et

al,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-3851 TEH (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

 

(Docket Nos. 3, 4, 5) 

Ruchell Cinque Magee, a prisoner at California State Prison-Corcoran

and a frequent litigant in this Court, has filed a civil rights complaint under 42

U.S.C. § 1983 claiming that his civil rights were violated by Defendants actions

in seizing trial records from his criminal jury trial in the 1970s. He seeks to

proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (docket no. 4). Plaintiff has

also filed a motion for a “hearing on filing” regarding his right to proceed in

forma pauperis (docket no. 3) and a “motion for declaratory judgment” which

apparently challenges the failure of the California Board of Prison Terms to set a

parole date (docket no. 5). The Court is unable to discern how this application is

related to the instant civil rights actions. 

This Court has previously ruled in Case No. C 06-0390 TEH (PR), that

Plaintiff is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis, because on three or more

occasions, Plaintiff filed civil actions that were dismissed on the grounds of being

frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

Case 3:06-cv-03851-TEH Document 6 Filed 03/28/07 Page 1 of 4
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

granted. See, Magee v. California Attorney General, Case No. C-06-0390 TEH

(PR) (docket no. 5; filed June 14, 2006, dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)).

 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 or appeal a civil judgment 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)'s cap on prior dismissed

claims applies to claims dismissed both before and after the [PLRA's] effective

date." Tierney v. Kupers, 128 F.3d 1310, 1312 (9th Cir. 1997). A prisoner

barred from proceeding in forma pauperis pursuant to § 1915(g) may proceed

under the fee provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1911-14 applicable to everyone else. 

Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996).

In Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1120 (9th Cir. 2005), the Ninth

Circuit found that where “defendants challenge a prisoner-plaintiff's IFP status,

then the initial production burden rests with the defendants. . . . [T]he defendants

must produce documentary evidence that allows the district court to conclude that

the plaintiff has filed at least three prior actions" that can be counted under §

1915(g). While Andrews does not address a case such as this one where the

Court raises the issue sua sponte, in Andrews the Ninth Circuit found the

rationale of Evans v. Ill. Dept. of Corr’s., 150 F.3d 810, 811-12 (7th Cir. 1998)

instructive regarding who bears the burden when the issue is raised by the district

court. In Evans, the Seventh Circuit upheld the district court’s determination to

deny IFP status to a prisoner-plaintiff where the court informed the plaintiff of

Case 3:06-cv-03851-TEH Document 6 Filed 03/28/07 Page 2 of 4
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)

3

the cases which it relied on for the determination under § 1915(g) status, thereby

putting plaintiff “on notice as to what the district court considered when denying

his request to proceed in forma pauperis. Having been notified, Evans bore the

burden of showing that the district court incorrectly assessed his litigation

history.” 

In this case, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s claim cannot proceed in forma

pauperis under § 1915(g). 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: C-93-3507 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). Each of the above cases reviewed by this

Court constitutes a case covered by § 1915(g). 

Because Plaintiff has had three or more prior dismissals that are frivolous,

malicious or fail to state a claim and the allegations of the complaint do not show

that he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury, his request to

proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED and the action is DISMISSED. This

Case 3:06-cv-03851-TEH Document 6 Filed 03/28/07 Page 3 of 4
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 4

dismissal is without prejudice to Plaintiff asserting the same claims in a

complaint for which he pays the full filing fee at the outset. Moreover, if

Plaintiff has a non-frivolous reason to argue that this Court has incorrectly

assessed his litigation history, Plaintiff may file a motion to reconsider under this

docket. All pending motions are DENIED as moot in light of the dismissal of the

action (docket no. 3, 4, 5). The Clerk shall close the file and enter judgment in

this matter.

SO ORDERED.

DATED: 03/28/07 THELTON E. HENDERSON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-03851-TEH Document 6 Filed 03/28/07 Page 4 of 4