Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01439/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01439-0/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIE WEAVER,

Plaintiff,

v.

MAILROOM STAFF,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-CV-01439-AWI-LJO-P

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 

(Doc.1) 

Plaintiff Willie Weaver (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on October 16, 2006, but

has not paid the $350.00 filing fee. Plaintiff alleges in his complaint that the mailroom staff has

refused to pick up mail in violation of the California Code of Regulations and the California

Penal Code.

A. IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS

Section 1915 of Title 28 of the United States Code allows certain litigants to pursue civil

Case 1:06-cv-01439-AWI-LJO Document 3 Filed 10/24/06 Page 1 of 4
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

The Ninth Circuit has held that Section 1915(g) does not violate a prisoner’s right of access to the courts, 1

due process or equal protection; nor does it violate separation of powers principles or operate as an ex post facto law. 

Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1179-82 (9 Cir. 1999); see also Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1123 (noting th

constitutionality of § 1915(g), but recognizing that “serious constitutional concerns would arise of § 1915(g) were

applied to preclude those prisoners who filed actions who were not ‘frivolous, malicious, or fail[ing] to state a claim’

from proceeding IFP.”

2

litigation without the full prepayment of costs and fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). The Prison

Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), however, amended Section 1915 to preclude the privilege of

proceeding in forma pauperis “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). “This subdivision is commonly known as the ‘three strikes’

provision.” Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 116 n.1 (9 Cir. 2005). “Pursuant to § 1915(g), a th

prisoner with three strikes cannot proceed IFP.” Id. 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 (9 Cir. 1997.) th

“‘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 fail[ed] to state a claim.” 

Andrews, 398 F.3d 1t 116 n.1. Thus, once a prisoner has accumulated three strikes, he is

prohibited by Section 1915(g) from pursuing any other action in forma pauperis in federal court

unless he is in “imminent danger of serious physical injury.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

1

The PLRA does not require a prisoner to demonstrate that § 1915(g) does not bar his

request to proceed IFP. Andrews, 398 F.3d at 119. In some instances “the district court docket

records may be sufficient to show that a prior dismissal satisfies at least one of the criteria under

§ 1915(g) and therefore counts as a strike.” Id. at 1120. When applying 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) the

court must “conduct a careful evaluation of the order dismissing an action, and other relevant

information,” before determining that the action “was dismissed because it was frivolous,

malicious or failed to state a claim,” since “not all unsuccessful cases qualify as a strike under

§1915(g).” Id. at 1121.

Case 1:06-cv-01439-AWI-LJO Document 3 Filed 10/24/06 Page 2 of 4
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

B. APPLICATION OF 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that Plaintiff has alleged no facts that

demonstrate he is in imminent injury of serious physical injury. See, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g);

Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F 3d. 1176, 1178 (9 Cir. 1999.) Plaintiff may not proceed in forma

th

pauperis under Section 1915 if he has, on three prior occasions while incarcerated, had federal

civil actions or appeals dismissed as frivolous, malicious or for failing to state a claim. See, 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g); Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1119-20; Rodriguez, 169 F.3d at 1178. 

In addition, “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.” United States ex rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244,

248 (9 Cir. 1992). th

The Court takes judicial notice of case numbers 1:06-CV-00671-OWW-SMS-P Weaver

v. California Correctional Institution Confinement SHU (dismissed July 17, 2006, for failure to

state a claim and frivolousness); 1:06-CV-00775-OWW-LJO-P Weaver v. California

Correctional Institution - Third Watch Sergeant (dismissed July 17, 2006, for failure to state a

claim and frivolousness); and 1:06-CV-00863-OWW-SMS-P Weaver v. California Correctional

Institution Law Library (dismissed August 1, 2006, for failure to state a claim and frivolousness). 

Accordingly, because Plaintiff has, while incarcerated, accumulated more than three

“strikes” pursuant to § 1915(g), and does not presently allege facts sufficient to show that he is

under imminent danger of serious physical injury, the Court will DISMISS the instant action. 

Plaintiff may not pay the filing fee after being denied in forma pauperis status to revive

his case. “[H]e must pay the fee at the time he initiates the suit.” Dupree v. Palmer, 284 F.3d

1234, 1236 (11 Cir. 2002). Further, the dismissal of Plaintiff’s action does not affect Plaintiff’s th

substantive rights, nor does not block his access to the courts. Plaintiff may still pursue any

claim after three qualifying dismissals but must do so without the assistance of the in forma

pauperis procedures. 

C. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 

Based on the above, the Court finds that Plaintiff has suffered three or more dismissals

Case 1:06-cv-01439-AWI-LJO Document 3 Filed 10/24/06 Page 3 of 4
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

4

within the meaning of Section 1915(g) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. In addition, the

Court has examined the Complaint finds that the case presents no facts from which an inference

can be drawn that Plaintiff was under any continuing or imminent danger of serious physical

injury at the time the action was filed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Tierney v. Kupers, 128 F.3d 1310,

1311 (9th Cir.1997). Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The action be DISMISSED pursuant to Section 1915(g). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 24, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01439-AWI-LJO Document 3 Filed 10/24/06 Page 4 of 4