Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02086/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02086-0/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

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

ALEJANDRO ALVE,

CDCR #B-77176,

Civil No. 15-cv-2086 BEN (PCL)

Plaintiff, ORDER:

(1) DENYING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS AS BARRED BY 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) 

[ECF Doc. No. 2] 

AND 

(2) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION

WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR

FAILURE TO PAY FILING 

FEE REQUIRED BY 

28 U.S.C. § 1914(a)

vs.

P. KUZIL-RUAN, et al.,

Defendants.

Alejandro Alve (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and currently incarcerated at

Calipatria State Prison located in Calipatria, California, initially filed this civil rights

complaint (“Compl.”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (ECF Doc. No. 1) in the Central

District of California. On September 17, 2015, United States District Judge Christina

Snyder determined that venue was proper in the Southern District of California and

transferred the matter to this Court. (ECF Doc. No. 6.) In addition, Plaintiff has filed

a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF Doc. No. 2.)

-1- 15cv2086 BEN (PCL)

Case 3:15-cv-02086-BEN-PCL Document 9 Filed 09/23/15 Page 1 of 5
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

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.

“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

-2- 15cv2086 BEN (PCL)

Case 3:15-cv-02086-BEN-PCL Document 9 Filed 09/23/15 Page 2 of 5
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 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 found no “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)). Plaintiff is challenging the validity of the documents in his

central file that were allegedly used by the classification committee to determine his

level of confinement.

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, Alejandro Alve, CDCR #B77176, while incarcerated, has brought three prior civil actions, in both this Court and

in the Northern District of California, 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).

/ / /

/ / /

-3- 15cv2086 BEN (PCL)

Case 3:15-cv-02086-BEN-PCL Document 9 Filed 09/23/15 Page 3 of 5
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) Alve v. State of California, et al., Civil Case No. 5:98-cv-21253-PVT

(N.D. Cal. March 11, 1999) (Order dismissing case for failing to state a claim) (strike

one);

2) Alve v. California Dep’t of Corrections, et al., Civil Case No. 3:00-cv02322-IEG-CGA (S.D. Cal. May 16, 2001) (Order dismissing action with prejudice

as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) § 1915A(b)) (strike two);

3) Alve v. D. Edwards, et al., Civil Case No. 3:10-cv-01389-DMS-POR

(S.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2010) (Order dismissing action for failing to state a claim

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)) (strike three).

Accordingly, because Plaintiff has, while incarcerated, accumulated three

“strikes” and he fails to make a “plausible allegation” that he faced imminent danger

of serious physical injury at the time he filed either of his complaints, 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.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

 For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby: 

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

by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g);

(2) 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);

and 

-4- 15cv2086 BEN (PCL)

Case 3:15-cv-02086-BEN-PCL Document 9 Filed 09/23/15 Page 4 of 5
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) GRANTS Plaintiff forty-five (45) days from the date of this Order in

which to re-open his case by paying the entire $400 statutory and administrative filing

fee. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 23, 2015

Hon. Roger T. Benitez

United States District Judge

-5- 15cv2086 BEN (PCL)

Case 3:15-cv-02086-BEN-PCL Document 9 Filed 09/23/15 Page 5 of 5