Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01135/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01135-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

C 15-1135 LB

ORDER

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of California

San Francisco Division

JIMMIE STEPHEN, 

Plaintiff,

v.

CDCR; et al., 

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

No. C 15-1135 LB

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE.

CONTEMPLATED DISMISSAL 

[Re: ECF No. 2]

Jimmie Stephen, an inmate at San Quentin State Prison, has filed this civil rights action under 42

U.S.C. § 1983 and applied to proceed in forma pauperis under to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Mr. Stephen has

consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. ECF No. 1 at 4. This matter is now before the court

for consideration of Mr. Stephen's in forma pauperis application.

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). Section 1915(g) requires that

this court consider prisoner actions dismissed before, as well as after, the statute's 1996 enactment. 

Case 3:15-cv-01135-LB Document 5 Filed 03/13/15 Page 1 of 3
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

C 15-1135 LB

ORDER 2

Tierney v. Kupers, 128 F.3d 1310, 1311-12 (9th Cir. 1997).

For purposes of a dismissal that may be counted under § 1915(g), the phrase "fails to state a

claim on which relief may be granted" parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(6) and carries the same interpretation, the word "frivolous" refers to a case that is "'of little

weight or importance: having no basis in law or fact,'" and the word "malicious" refers to a case

"filed with the 'intention or desire to harm another.'" Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th

Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). Only cases within one of these three categories can be counted as

strikes for § 1915(g) purposes, so the mere fact that Mr. Stephen has filed many cases in the federal

courts in California does not alone warrant dismissal under § 1915(g). See id. Rather, dismissal of

an action under § 1915(g) should only occur when, "after careful evaluation of the order dismissing

an [earlier] action, and other relevant information, the district court determines that the action was

dismissed because it was frivolous, malicious or failed to state a claim." Id.

Andrews requires that the prisoner be given notice of the potential applicability of § 1915(g), by

either the district court or the defendants, but also requires the prisoner to bear the ultimate burden

of persuasion that § 1915(g) does not bar pauper status for him. Id. Andrews implicitly allows the

court to sua sponte raise the § 1915(g) problem, but requires the court to notify the prisoner of the

earlier dismissals it considers to support a § 1915(g) dismissal and allow the prisoner an opportunity

to be heard on the matter before dismissing the action. See id. at 1120. A dismissal under § 1915(g)

means that a prisoner cannot proceed with his action as a pauper under § 1915(g), but he still may

pursue his claims if he pays the full filing fee at the outset of the action.

A review of the dismissal orders in Mr. Stephen's prior prisoner actions and appeals reveals that

he has had at least three such actions or appeals dismissed on the grounds that they were frivolous,

malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The qualifying cases include:

(1) Stephen v. Silverman, N. D. Cal. Case No. C 10-496 SI (dismissed as frivolous); (2) Stephen v.

Reinhardt, N. D. Cal. Case No. C 10-349 SI (dismissed as frivolous); (3) Stephen v. Zulfacur, S. D.

Cal. Case No. 93cv1943 R (RBB) (dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted); (4) Stephen v. Hernandez, S. D. Cal. Case No. 06cv0171 L (WMc) (dismissed for failure to

state a claim upon which relief may be granted); (5) Stephen v. Shelar, S. D. Cal. Case No.

Case 3:15-cv-01135-LB Document 5 Filed 03/13/15 Page 2 of 3
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

C 15-1135 LB

ORDER 3

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

06cv1054 LAB (WMc) (dismissed for failure to state a claim); (6) Stephen v. Marshal, C. D. Cal.

No. 07-cv-5337-UA-SH (dismissed because action was "legally and/or factually patently frivolous"

and for other reasons); and (7) Stephen v. Hoxie, C. D. Cal. No. 08-cv-3260-SH (dismissal for failure

to state a claim). 

In light of these dismissals, and because it does not appear that Mr. Stephen was under imminent

danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint, Mr. Stephen is ORDERED TO

SHOW CAUSE in writing filed no later than April 17, 2015, why in forma pauperis should not be

denied and this action should not be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). In the alternative to

showing cause why the action should not be dismissed, Mr. Stephen may avoid dismissal by paying

the full $400.00 filing fee by the deadline.

Mr. Stephen also sent to the court a letter in which he asked for a copy of his complaint filed in

another action and his complaint filed in this action. ECF No. 4. The clerk will send him a

photocopy of his complaint in this action. In the future, Mr. Stephen must make a photocopy of any

document he files before he files it. If Mr. Stephen wants photocopies of documents filed in another

action, he needs to complete and submit a photocopy order form, a copy of which the clerk will send

to him. In that same letter, Mr. Stephen asked for forms for a waiver of service. If he wants those

forms for use in another action, he should make a request in that action. It is premature to determine

whether he needs those forms for this action, as the § 1915(g) issue must be decided first. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 13, 2015 _______________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-01135-LB Document 5 Filed 03/13/15 Page 3 of 3