Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-01471/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-01471-0/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 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE ALBERTO CAMPOS, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

THOMAS P. GOUGHNOUR, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 04-1471 SBA (PR)

ORDER

(Docket nos. 1, 2, 5)

I. Order to Show Cause

Plaintiff, Jose Alberto Campos, a.k.a. Joseph D. Rodriguez and Joseph Delfin Rodriquez, a state

prisoner, and a frequent litigant in federal court, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. §

1983. Plaintiff also seeks to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

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). 

"Not all unsuccessful cases qualify as a strike under § 1915(g). Rather, § 1915(g) should be used

to deny a prisoner's IFP status only when, after careful evaluation of the order dismissing an 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." Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005). 

Andrews thus implicitly allows the Court to sua sponte raise the § 1915(g) problem, but requires the Court

to notify the plaintiff of the earlier dismissals it considers to support a § 1915(g) dismissal and allow the

plaintiff an opportunity to be heard on the matter before dismissing the action. See id. at 1120.

Case 4:04-cv-01471-SBA Document 7 Filed 05/04/05 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

In the instant case, the Court has determined that Plaintiff has had three or more prior prisoner

actions dismissed by this court on the grounds that they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted. See, e.g., Rodriquez v. Medina, et al., No. C 00-1990 MJJ (N.D. Cal.

June 19, 2000) (order of dismissal); Rodriquez v. County of Santa Cruz, et al., No. C 02-1987 SBA (PR)

(N.D. Cal. May 17, 2002) (same); Campos v. San Mateo County, et al., No. C 03-1548 SBA (PR)

(N.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2004) (same). Plaintiff therefore may proceed in forma pauperis only if he is seeking

relief from a danger of serious physical injury which is "imminent" at the time of filing. See Abdul-Akbar v.

McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307, 312 (3d Cir. 2001) (en banc); Medberry v. Butler, 185 F.3d 1189, 1192-93

(11th Cir. 1999); Ashley v. Dilworth, 147 F.3d 715, 717 (8th Cir. 1998); Banos v. O'Guin, 144 F.3d 883,

885 (5th Cir. 1998). He is not. 

Because Plaintiff has had three or more prior dismissals and is not under imminent danger of

serious physical injury, the Court now orders Plaintiff to show cause why the three aforementioned

dismissals should not be counted as "strikes" to support a § 1915(g) dismissal. Plaintiff's response to this

order to show cause is due by June 3, 2005. The response must clearly be labeled "RESPONSE TO

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE."

II. Order Directing Plaintiff to Show Continued Intent to Prosecute this Action

Plaintiff filed this civil rights action on April 15, 2004. On that same date, Plaintiff filed a motion for

leave to proceed in forma pauperis. On May 3, 2004, Plaintiff filed a Prisoner Trust Fund Account

Statement with the Court. On May 5, 2004, Plaintiff filed a second motion for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis. On May 11, 2004, Plaintiff filed a notice of change of address. Plaintiff has not communicated

with the Court since. 

Plaintiff has kept the Court apprised of his change in address. However, because the Court has not

heard from Plaintiff for almost a year, it is in the interests of justice and judicial efficiency for the Court to

verify that Plaintiff still intends to pursue his claims. Therefore, no later than June 3, 2005, Plaintiff shall file

with the Court a notice of his continued intent to prosecute. The notice must clearly be labeled "NOTICE

OF CONTINUED INTENT TO PROSECUTE." Should Plaintiff fail to file such notice, the complaint will

be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

Case 4:04-cv-01471-SBA Document 7 Filed 05/04/05 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

FAILURE TO FILE A RESPONSE TO THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND A

NOTICE OF CONTINUED INTENT TO PROSECUTE BY JUNE 3, 2005 WILL RESULT IN A

DISMISSAL OF THIS ACTION WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 5/4/04

s/Saundra Brown Armstrong

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:04-cv-01471-SBA Document 7 Filed 05/04/05 Page 3 of 3