Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00636/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00636-0/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

17cv636

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

HOANG MINH TRAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-00636-BAS-JLB

ORDER:

(1) DENYING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

(ECF No. 2); AND

(2) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR 

FAILURE TO PAY REQUIRED 

FILING FEE

Plaintiff Hoang Minh Tran, currently housed at the San Diego Central Jail, has filed 

a civil action 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), but has instead filed a Motion to Proceed 

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

LEGAL STANDARD

“All persons, not just prisoners, may seek IFP status.” Moore v. Maricopa County 

Case 3:17-cv-00636-BAS-JLB Document 3 Filed 04/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

17cv636

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

Sheriff’s Office, 657 F.3d 890, 892 (9th Cir. 2011). However, when prisoners move to 

proceed IFP, they “face an additional hurdle.” Id. In addition to requiring prisoners to pay 

the full filing fee in increments, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3)(b), 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”). Where a prisoner has three strikes or more, he cannot proceed IFP. Id.; see 

also Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2007) (hereafter “Cervantes”).

“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). 

“[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. 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 “under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(g).

DISCUSSION

As a threshold matter, the Court has carefully reviewed Plaintiff’s Complaint and 

has determined that it does not contain “plausible allegations” suggesting he “faced 

‘imminent danger of serious physical injury’ at the time of filing.” Cervantes, 493 F.3d at 

Case 3:17-cv-00636-BAS-JLB Document 3 Filed 04/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

17cv636

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

1055 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)). Therefore, if Plaintiff has accumulated three or more 

strikes, the instant action is barred under § 1915(g).

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

three 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 Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 

1212, 1225 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[W]e 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.”) (quoting Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 803 n.2 (9th Cir. 

2002). Those previously dismissed actions are as follows:

1) Tran v. Gore, et al., Civil Case No. 10-1323 BTM (WMc) (S.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 

2011), Order dismissing action for failing to comply with Court’s Order and for 

failing to state a claim (strike one);

2) Tran v. Gore, et al., Civil Case No. 10-1751 JAH (WVG) (S.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 

2011), Order dismissing First Amended Complaint for failing to state a claim and as 

frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) & 1915A(b) (strike two);

3) Tran v. Gore, et al., Civil Case No. 10-2036 JAH (WVG) (S.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 

2011), Order dismissing First Amended Complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) & 1915A(b) (strike three);

4) Tran v. Gore, et al., Civil Case No. 10-1880 MMA (BLM) (S.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 

2011), Order dismissing First Amended Complaint for failing to state a claim and as 

frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) & 1915A(b) (strike four).

Accordingly, because Plaintiff has accumulated at least three strikes, and has failed

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 (explaining that 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(g) “does not prevent all prisoners from accessing the courts; it only precludes 

Case 3:17-cv-00636-BAS-JLB Document 3 Filed 04/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

17cv636

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

prisoners with a history of abusing the legal system from continuing to abuse it while 

enjoying IFP status”); see also Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1231 (9th Cir. 1984) 

(“[C]ourt permission to proceed IFP is itself a matter of privilege and not right.”).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Court:

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

U.S.C. §1915(g);

2) DISMISSES this action without prejudice for failure to pay the full statutory 

and administrative $400 filing fees required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); and

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

therefore, would not be taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). See 

Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962); Gardner v. Pogue, 558 F.2d 548, 

550 (9th Cir. 1977) (indigent appellant is permitted to proceed IFP on appeal only if 

appeal would not be frivolous).

The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 17, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-00636-BAS-JLB Document 3 Filed 04/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4