Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00360/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00360-3/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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

GREGORY C. BONTEMPS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

C/O CALLISON, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:13-cv-0360 KJM AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided 

by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

 On November 18, 2013, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 

were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 

findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. Plaintiff has filed 

objections to the findings and recommendations. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the 

court declines to adopt the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations (“F&Rs”). 

The F&Rs recommend granting defendants’ motion to revoke plaintiff’s in forma pauperis 

(“IFP”) status in light of the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s “three strikes” provision. That 

Case 2:13-cv-00360-KJM-AC Document 26 Filed 03/12/14 Page 1 of 2
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

provision disqualifies a prisoner from proceeding IFP if, on three or more prior occasions, a 

plaintiff “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 

. . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The magistrate judge found that plaintiff had four strikes: three for 

failure to timely file an amended complaint after a prior complaint had been dismissed for failure 

to state a claim, and one for failure to state a claim. (F&Rs at 3–4.) 

 Dismissal for failure to file an amended complaint, or failure to prosecute, is not a “strike” 

because it does not fall within the plain language of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Butler v. Dep’t of 

Justice, 492 F.3d 440, 443–44 (D.C. Cir. 2007); see also Benyamini v. Ogbeide, No. CIV S-10-

0101 KJM, 2012 WL 4364329, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2012) (failure to prosecute is not a 

strike). Failure to prosecute is not “frivolous,” “malicious,” or a failure to state a claim. Butler, 

492 F.3d at 443–44. It is a disposition without regard to the merits of a claim. Id. at 444. 

 That said, concerns about a prisoner’s abusing his or her IFP status by filing actions and 

then abandoning them may be addressed through a court’s discretionary authority to deny IFP 

status. This authority derives from the statute itself, which provides “any court of the United 

States may authorize” IFP status, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), and from a court’s general supervisory 

authority to manage its docket to “promote the interests of justice.” Id. at 444–45 (citation and 

quotations omitted). In the instant case, the magistrate judge has identified five actions brought 

by plaintiff since 2006. This number is not abusive. Cf. id. at 446 (finding plaintiff abusive and 

rescinding IFP status because he filed at least eight appeals in four years for a total of at least 

fifteen cases). 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. The findings and recommendations filed November 18, 2013, are not adopted; and 

 2. Defendants’ motion to revoke in pauperis status (ECF 15) is denied. 

DATE: March 12, 2014. 

Case 2:13-cv-00360-KJM-AC Document 26 Filed 03/12/14 Page 2 of 2