Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02984/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02984-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

3:16-cv-02984-WQH-KSC

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

PEDRO RODRIGUEZ,

Booking #14745493,

Plaintiff,

v.

SHERIFF WILLIAM GORE,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:16-cv-02984-WQH-KSC

ORDER:

(1) DENYING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

AS BARRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) 

[ECF Doc. No. 2]

(2) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR 

FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEE 

REQUIRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); 

and

(3) DENYING MOTION FOR 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Plaintiff, Pedro Rodriguez, currently detained at the San Diego Central Jail, has 

filed a civil rights Complaint (“Compl.”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Doc. No. 

1.) Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief against the San Diego County Sheriff, William Gore. 

See Compl. at 7. 

Case 3:16-cv-02984-WQH-KSC Document 4 Filed 12/15/16 Page 1 of 5
2

3:16-cv-02984-WQH-KSC

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

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

instead, he has filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) (ECF Doc. No. 2). 

In addition, Plaintiff has filed a one page document entitled “Motion for Order to Show 

Cause for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order.” (ECF Doc. No. 3).

I. Motion to Proceed IFP

“All persons, not just prisoners, may seek IFP status.” Moore v. Maricopa County 

Sheriff’s Office, 657 F.3d 890, 892 (9th Cir. 2011). “Prisoners” like Plaintiff, however, 

“face an additional hurdle.” Id. In addition to requiring prisoners to “pay the full amount 

of a filing fee,” in “increments” as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3)(b), Williams v. 

Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2015), the Prison Litigation Reform Act 

(“PLRA”) amended section 1915 to preclude the privilege to proceed IFP:

. . . if [a] 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). 

“[S]ection 1915(g)’s cap on prior dismissed claims applies to claims dismissed both 

before and after the statute’s effective date.” Id. at 1311.

/ / /

Case 3:16-cv-02984-WQH-KSC Document 4 Filed 12/15/16 Page 2 of 5
3

3:16-cv-02984-WQH-KSC

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

“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 by section 

1915(g) from pursuing any other IFP action in federal court unless he 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.”).

II. Application to Plaintiff

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

ascertained that it does not contain “plausible allegations” which suggest he “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, while incarcerated, has brought 

at least three prior civil actions which have been dismissed on the grounds that they were 

frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(g).

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:16-cv-02984-WQH-KSC Document 4 Filed 12/15/16 Page 3 of 5
4

3:16-cv-02984-WQH-KSC

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

 They are: 

1) Rodriguez v. Robinson, et al., Civil Case No. 3:14-02770-LAB-WVG (S.D.

Cal. Jan. 16, 2015) (Order Granting Motion to Proceed IFP and Dismissing 

Complaint for failing to state a claim) (ECF Doc. No. 4) (strike one);

2) Rodriguez v. Mitchell, et al., Civil Case No. 3:14-cv-02708-GPC-WVG 

(S.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2015) (Order granting Motion to Proceed IFP and 

Dismissing Complaint for failing to state a claim and seeking monetary 

damages against immune defendants) (ECF Doc. No. 4.) (strike two); and

3) Rodriguez v. Stall, et al., Civil Case No. 3:14-cv-02646-LAB-DHB (S.D. 

Cal. Apr. 23, 2015) (Order Dismissing First Amended Complaint for failing 

to state a claim) (ECF Doc. No. 11) (strike three).

Accordingly, because Plaintiff has, while incarcerated, accumulated at least the 

three “strikes”1 permitted 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 only precludes 

prisoners with a history of abusing the legal system from continuing 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. Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order

Plaintiff also has filed a motion for injunctive relief. However, this request is far 

from clear and it contains only the broad assertion that “Petitioner’s right to redress as 

guaranteed under the 1st Amendment and Due Process under the 14th Amendment is 

 

1

 Plaintiff has, in fact, filed twelve separate civil rights actions in this Court alone since 

November 2014.

Case 3:16-cv-02984-WQH-KSC Document 4 Filed 12/15/16 Page 4 of 5
5

3:16-cv-02984-WQH-KSC

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

under attack by Defendant Sheriff William Gore and his impending action to destroy 

Petitioner’s exculpatory evidence.” (Pl.’s Mot. at 1.) It is not clear what specific relief 

Plaintiff is seeking by way of either a temporary restraining order or preliminary 

injunction. In addition, because he is barred from proceeding IFP in this action and the 

action must be dismissed as a result, the Court cannot grant Plaintiff any injunctive relief

at this time. 

IV. Conclusion and Order

 For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby: 

(1) DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF Doc. No. 3);

(2) DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF Doc. No. 2) as barred by 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g);

(3) DISMISSES this civil action sua sponte without prejudice for failing to 

prepay the $400 civil and administrative filing fees required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a).

The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 15, 2016

Case 3:16-cv-02984-WQH-KSC Document 4 Filed 12/15/16 Page 5 of 5