Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00414/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00414-0/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

18-CV-0414 JLS (KSC)

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

ERIC CHATMAN,

CDCR #BD-5474,

Plaintiff,

v.

CUSH HONDA; CUSH AUTO GROUP,

Defendants.

Case No.: 18-CV-0414 JLS (KSC)

ORDER: (1) DENYING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

AS BARRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); 

AND (2) DISMISSING CIVIL 

ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

FOR FAILURE TO PAY FILING 

FEE REQUIRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 

1914(a)

Plaintiff, Eric Chatman, a state inmate currently incarcerated at the California State 

Prison located in Corcoran, California, has filed a civil rights Complaint (“Compl.”) 

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); instead, he has filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma 

Pauperis (“IFP”), (ECF No. 2). 

I. Motion to Proceed IFP

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

Sheriff’s Office, 657 F.3d 890, 892 (9th Cir. 2011). “Prisoners” like Plaintiff, however, 

Case 3:18-cv-00414-JLS-KSC Document 5 Filed 03/26/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

18-CV-0414 JLS (KSC)

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

“face an additional hurdle.” Id. In addition to requiring prisoners to “pay the full amount 

of a filing fee,” in “increments” as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3)(b), Williams v. 

Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2015), the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) 

amended section 1915 to preclude the privilege to proceed IFP:

[I]f [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). 

“Pursuant to § 1915(g), a prisoner with three strikes or more cannot proceed IFP.” 

Id.; see also Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2007) (under the PLRA, 

“[p]risoners who have repeatedly brought unsuccessful suits may entirely be barred from 

IFP status under the three strikes rule”). The objective of the PLRA is to further “the 

congressional goal of reducing frivolous prisoner litigation in federal court.” Tierney v. 

Kupers, 128 F.3d 1310, 1312 (9th Cir. 1997). “[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.

“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).

Once a prisoner has accumulated three strikes, he is prohibited by section 1915(g) from 

pursuing any other IFP action in federal court unless he can show he is facing “imminent 

danger of serious physical injury.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Cervantes, 493 F.3d at 1051-

Case 3:18-cv-00414-JLS-KSC Document 5 Filed 03/26/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

18-CV-0414 JLS (KSC)

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

52 (noting § 1915(g)’s exception for IFP complaints which “make[] a plausible allegation 

that the prisoner faced ‘imminent danger of serious physical injury’ at the time of filing”).

II. Application to Plaintiff

As an initial matter, the Court has carefully reviewed Plaintiff’s Complaint and has 

ascertained that it does not contain “plausible allegations” which suggest he “faced 

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

1055 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)). 

A court “‘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.’” 

Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1225 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 

285 F.3d 801, 803 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002)); see also United States ex rel. Robinson Rancheria 

Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992). 

Thus, this Court takes judicial notice that Plaintiff, while incarcerated, has brought 

at least three prior civil actions which have been dismissed on the grounds that they were 

frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(g). They are: 

1) Chatman v. Toyota of Escondido, et al., Civil Case No. 3:17-cv-01853-BASJLB (S.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2017) (Order Dismissing Action for failing to state a claim 

and without leave to amend) (strike one);

2) Chatman v. Cush Acura, et al., Civil Case No. 3:17-cv-01852-WQH-JLB

(S.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2017) (Order Dismissing Action for failing to state a claim and 

without leave to amend) (strike two);

3) Chatman v. Super 8 Motel, et al., Civil Case No. 3:17-cv-02517-DMS-JMA 

(S.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2018) (Order Dismissing Action for failing to state a claim and 

without leave to amend) (strike three);

4) Chatman v. Super 8 Motel Co., et al., Civil Case No. 3:18-cv-00213-BASNLS (S.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 2018) (Order Dismissing Action as frivolous and without 

Case 3:18-cv-00414-JLS-KSC Document 5 Filed 03/26/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

18-CV-0414 JLS (KSC)

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

leave to amend) (strike four).

Accordingly, because Plaintiff has, while incarcerated, accumulated at least the three 

“strikes” permitted pursuant to § 1915(g), and he fails 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 the privilege of proceeding IFP in this action. See Cervantes, 493 F.3d at 

1055; Rodriguez, 169 F.3d at 1180 (finding that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) “does not prevent all 

prisoners from accessing the courts; it only precludes 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.”).

III. Conclusion and Order

 For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby: 

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

U.S.C. § 1915(g);

(2) DISMISSES this civil action sua sponte without prejudice for failing to 

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

The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 26, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-00414-JLS-KSC Document 5 Filed 03/26/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4