Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00279/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00279-1/pdf.json

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In Re.

VINCENT ROSENBALM,

Plaintiff. /

No. C 08-279 SI (pr)

No. C 08-751 SI (pr)

No. C 08-952 SI (pr)

No. C 08-1360 SI (pr)

No. C 08-1474 SI (pr)

No. C 08-1503 SI (pr)

No. C 08-1504 SI (pr)

No. C 08-1603 SI (pr)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

On April 4, 2008, the court ordered plaintiff, Vincent Rosenbalm, to show cause why

these actions should not be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which provides that a prisoner

may not bring a civil action in forma pauperis 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). The order identified four

prior dismissals that appeared to count under § 1915(g) and ordered Rosenbalm to show cause

why pauper status should not be denied and the referenced actions dismissed. The order further

stated that Rosenbalm also could avoid dismissal by paying the filing fee by the deadline for

each of the referenced cases. 

Rosenbalm did not pay the filing fees, did not show that any of the prior dismissals could

not be counted under § 1915(g), and did not otherwise show cause why these cases could not be

dismissed. He filed several documents that claimed, among other things, that he was in

Case 3:08-cv-00279-SI Document 12 Filed 05/08/08 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

2

imminent danger, but the assertions plainly demonstrate that he was not under imminent danger

at the time of filing of the complaints in these actions. Events that occurred months and years

before the complaints were filed – such as Rosenbalm's statements about events in May 2007,

September 2007 and in 1998 – do not suffice to show a plausible claim that he was in imminent

danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493

F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2007). 

Rosenbalm has not shown that any of the prior dismissals cannot properly be counted as

dismissals under § 1915(g) and has not shown that the referenced actions should not be

dismissed. The court finds that the four prior dismissals identified in the order to show cause

count as dismissals for purposes of § 1915(g).

Accordingly, Rosenbalm’s in forma pauperis application is DENIED in each of these

actions and each of these actions is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The dismissal

of each of these actions is without prejudice to Rosenbalm asserting his claims in an action for

which he pays the full filing fee at the time he files his complaint. In light of the dismissals, all

other pending motions are DISMISSED as moot. The clerk shall close the file for each of the

referenced actions.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 8, 2008 ______________________

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00279-SI Document 12 Filed 05/08/08 Page 2 of 2