Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-02090/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-02090-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

IN RE WEAVER

 ORDER OF DISMISSAL

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

IN RE WILLIE WEAVER,

Plaintiff.

 /

No. C 14-1761 RS (PR)

No. C 14-1860 RS (PR)

No. C 14-2089 RS (PR)

No. C 14-2090 RS (PR)

No. C 14-2161 RS (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the above civil rights complaints

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He also applied to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) under 

28 U.S.C. § 1915 in each action. 

The Court found that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) bars plaintiff from proceeding IFP in these 

actions because he (1) has had three or more prior prisoner actions dismissed by a federal

court on the grounds that they are frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted; and (2) does not appear to be seeking relief from a danger of serious

physical injury which is imminent at the time of filing. The Court gave plaintiff notice of

these strikes and informed him that they were presumed valid because he had failed on prior

occasions to challenge them successfully. Pursuant to the law of this Circuit, plaintiff

Case 3:14-cv-02090-RS Document 8 Filed 04/10/15 Page 1 of 2
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

IN RE WEAVER

2 ORDER OF DISMISSAL

nonetheless was afforded an opportunity to persuade the Court that § 1915(g) does not bar

pauper status for him because he is “under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

Plaintiff’s response to the Court’s order to show cause is unavailing. He cites

boilerplate case law that is either irrelevant to the issues at hand, or which he has failed to

relate to his specific lawsuits. His allegations that he was under imminent danger at the time

of filing are conclusory and vague. Therefore, he has failed to show that his actions are not

barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Accordingly, each action listed above is DISMISSED without prejudice to plaintiff

bringing his claims in new paid complaints. His motions to proceed IFP are DENIED. In

each action, the Clerk shall terminate any pending motion(s), enter judgment in favor of

defendants, and close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 10 , 2015 

 RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-02090-RS Document 8 Filed 04/10/15 Page 2 of 2