Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-03004/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-03004-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

LEE QUILLAR,

CDCR #D-22639

Civil No. 12cv3004 JAH (MDD)

Plaintiff, ORDER:

(1) DENYING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

AS BARRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)

[ECF No. 2] 

AND 

(2) DISMISSING CASE FOR

FAILURE TO PAY FILING 

FEE REQUIRED BY 

28 U.S.C. § 1914(a)

vs.

HERBERT J. EXARHOS; 

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,

Defendants.

Plaintiff, a state inmate currently incarcerated at Folsom State Prison located in Folsom,

California and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff has not prepaid the civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); instead, he has

submitted a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)

[ECF No. 2].

/ / /

/ / /

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\JAH\12cv3004-Deny-IFP-1915(g).wpd -1- 12cv3004 JAH (MDD)

Case 3:12-cv-03004-JAH-MDD Document 3 Filed 01/10/13 Page 1 of 4
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

I. Motion to Proceed IFP

Section 1915 of Title 28 of the United States Code allows certain litigants to pursue civil

litigation IFP, that is, without the full prepayment of fees or costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). 

However, the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) amended section 1915 to preclude the

privilege to proceed IFP:

. . . 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 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”). “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) (hereafter “Cervantes”) (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). 

“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 bysection 1915(g) frompursuing anyother IFP action

in federal court unless she can show he is facing “imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Cervantes, 493 F.3d at 1051-52 (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.”).

/ / /

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\JAH\12cv3004-Deny-IFP-1915(g).wpd -2- 12cv3004 JAH (MDD)

Case 3:12-cv-03004-JAH-MDD Document 3 Filed 01/10/13 Page 2 of 4
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

II. Application of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)

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

ascertained that there is no “plausible allegation” to suggest Plaintiff “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 has had three prisoner civil actions dismissed on the grounds that

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

 They are: 

1) Quillar v. Rowlett, et al., Civil Case No. 2:01-cv-00301-GEB-PAN (E.D. Cal.

Jan. 22, 2003OrderAdopting Findings and Recommendations DismissingAction

for failing to state a claim) (strike one);

2) Quillar v. Alemeida, et al., Civil Case No. 2:02-cv-02117-DFL-DAD (E.D. Cal. 

Feb. 2, 2004 Order Adopting Findings and Recommendations Dismissing Action

for failing to state a claim (strike two);

3) Quillar v. Barranco, et al., Civil Case No. 3:04-cv-01405-DMS-JFS (S.D. Cal.

Aug. 13, 2004 Order Dismissing Action for failing to state a claim pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii) & 1915A(b)(1) (strike three).

Accordingly, because Plaintiff has, while incarcerated, accumulated three “strikes”

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 onlyprecludes prisoners with a history of abusing the legal systemfromcontinuing

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\JAH\12cv3004-Deny-IFP-1915(g).wpd -3- 12cv3004 JAH (MDD)

Case 3:12-cv-03004-JAH-MDD Document 3 Filed 01/10/13 Page 3 of 4
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

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 No. 2] pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g); and 

2) DISMISSES this action without prejudice for failure to pay the $350 civil filing

fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a).

The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 10, 2013 _________________________________________

 

 HON. JOHN A. HOUSTON

 United States District Judge

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\JAH\12cv3004-Deny-IFP-1915(g).wpd -4- 12cv3004 JAH (MDD)

Case 3:12-cv-03004-JAH-MDD Document 3 Filed 01/10/13 Page 4 of 4