Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01927/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01927-4/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRENT LEE HARDING,

Plaintiff,

v.

RIO COSUMNES CORRECTIONAL 

FACILTY, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-1927 CKD P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for violation of civil 

rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants have filed a motion arguing that plaintiff’s in forma 

pauperis (IFP) status should be revoked because, according to defendants, plaintiff has “struck 

out” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) reads as follows:

In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action . . . [under the in 

forma pauperis statute] 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.

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:15-cv-01927-JAM-CKD Document 30 Filed 07/28/16 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

27

28

2

Defendants identify the following Eastern District of California cases as potential 

“strikes:”

1. 2:15-cv-1364 CKD P, judgment entered September 3, 2015.

2. 2:15-cv-1890 CKD P, judgment entered November 18, 2015.

3. 2:16-cv-0116 CKD P, judgment entered March 22, 2016.1 

Plaintiff’s initial complaint was filed on September 11, 2015. Therefore, at the time 

plaintiff brought this action, two of the cases identified by defendants were not “strikes;” 2:15-cv1890 CKD P was still pending, and 2:16-cv-0116 CKD P had not yet been brought. Accordingly, 

defendants have not shown that plaintiff has “struck out” under § 1915(g).2

In their reply brief, defendants assert, for the first time, that the court should revoke 

plaintiff’s IFP status because of plaintiff’s “abusive” pattern of litigation. In support of this 

argument, defendants cite Visser v. Supreme Court of Cal., 919 F.2d 113, 114 (9th Cir. 1990). In 

that case, a mandamus petitioner brought eleven petitions asserting essentially the same claims. 

After the first six were denied, petitioner was denied permission to proceed IFP with respect to 

the next five due to his “manifestly abusive” pattern of litigation. 

This argument is not properly before the court because plaintiff has not had a chance to 

respond to it. In any case, when plaintiff sought permission to proceed IFP in this action, only 

one case brought by him had been deemed by the court to have no merit. This is in no way 

comparable to the situation in Visser.

/////

/////

 

1

 Pursuant to defendants’ requests, the court takes judicial notice that plaintiff was also the 

plaintiff in these actions and that they were dismissed on the dates indicated. See Fed. R. Evid. 

201.

2

 In their reply brief, defendants argue that strikes do not have to be incurred before an action is 

brought to be counted as strikes for purposes of that action. In making this argument, defendants, 

without explanation, ignore the phrase “[i]n no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action . . . .” 

Under the plain meaning of § 1915(g) it is the bringing of civil action which is to be denied if the 

appropriate criteria are met, not the continued prosecution of it. See e.g.Wilson v. Wann, No. 

2:06-cv-1629 GEB KJM P, 2008 WL 4166886 at * 1 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 8, 2008).

Case 2:15-cv-01927-JAM-CKD Document 30 Filed 07/28/16 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

27

28

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants’ motion for revocation of 

plaintiff’s in forma pauperis (ECF No. 24) status is denied. 

Dated: July 28, 2016

1

hard1927.rifp

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:15-cv-01927-JAM-CKD Document 30 Filed 07/28/16 Page 3 of 3