Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03560/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03560-2/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TAHEE ABD’RASHEED, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-3560 FCD DAD P

vs.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

AND REHABILITATION, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 28, 2010, the undersigned issued findings and recommendations,

recommending that this action be dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to file a properly completed

application to proceed in forma pauperis. On May 19, 2010, plaintiff filed objections to the April

28, 2010 findings and recommendations, arguing therein that he has attempted to obtain a trust

account statement from prison staff but has been denied on numerous occasions. Accordingly,

plaintiff requests that the court reconsider its April 28, 2010 findings and recommendations and

order prison staff to cooperate with his requests for trust account information.

Plaintiff’s inability to obtain trust account information for the purpose of filing an

in forma pauperis application in this civil rights action may be explained by his status as a “three

strikes” litigant. The federal in forma pauperis statute includes a limitation on the number of

Case 2:09-cv-03560-FCD-DAD Document 12 Filed 06/08/10 Page 1 of 3
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

 A court may take judicial notice of court records. See MGIC Indem. Co. v. Weisman, 1

803 F.2d 500, 505 (9 th Cir. 1986); United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980).

2

actions in which a prisoner can proceed in forma pauperis. Known as the “three strikes” rule, 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g) provides: 

In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a

judgment in a civil action or proceeding under [§ 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.

The court has reviewed its own records and has determined that plaintiff has had three or more

actions dismissed as frivolous, as malicious, or as failing to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted. Specifically, in Rasheed v. Harrington, No. 1:09-cv-1490-AWI-DLB PC, Chief U.S. 1

District Judge Anthony Ishii of this court found that plaintiff suffered at least the following three

strikes under § 1915(g): Smith v. Holm, No. 3:06-cv-5992-SI; Smith v. Scribner, No. 1:07-cv0509-LJO-SMS; and Smith v. Social Sec. Admin. Office, Employees, No. 1:07-cv-0531-AWISMS. (See Doc. No. 3.) Therefore, plaintiff is precluded from proceeding in forma pauperis

unless he can demonstrate that he is under imminent danger of serious physical harm. See 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g).

After a careful review of plaintiff’s complaint, the court finds that plaintiff is not

under imminent danger of serious physical harm. In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that he is

being denied access to his trust account and to his business and legal mail. Plaintiff does not

suggest that he is in any danger of being physically harmed. Thus, plaintiff may only proceed

with this action if he pays the $350.00 filing fee in full. See Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113,

1120 (9th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, the court will grant plaintiff a final thirty days leave to pay 

the $350.00 filing fee. Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to pay the filing fee in full will result in

the dismissal of this action.

Case 2:09-cv-03560-FCD-DAD Document 12 Filed 06/08/10 Page 2 of 3
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

3

For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The court’s April 28, 2010 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 9) are

vacated; and

2. Plaintiff shall pay the $350.00 filing fee in full within thirty days of the date of

this order or this action will be dismissed without prejudice.

DATED: June 7, 2010.

DAD:sj

rash3560.vac+3B

Case 2:09-cv-03560-FCD-DAD Document 12 Filed 06/08/10 Page 3 of 3