Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01847/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01847-1/pdf.json

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES W. BRAMMER,

CDCR #C-59515,

Civil No. 14cv1847 GPC (BGS)

Plaintiff, ORDER:

(1) DENYING MOTIONS TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

AS BARRED BY 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) 

[ECF Doc. Nos. 8, 9] 

AND 

(2) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION

WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR

FAILURE TO PAY FILING 

FEE REQUIRED BY 

28 U.S.C. § 1914(a)

vs.

AMY MILLER, Warden, et al.,

Defendants.

James W. Brammer (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and currently incarcerated at

Pleasant Valley State Prison, in Coalinga, California, filed a civil rights complaint

(“Compl.”) in the Northern District of California pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on July

25, 2014 (ECF Doc. No. 7), followed by two Motions to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

(“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) on July 25 and 30, 2014 (ECF Doc. Nos. 8, 9). 

/ / /

/ / /

I:\Chambers Curiel\Civil - Odd\dismissal\14cv1847-deny-IFP-1915(g).wpd -1- 14cv1847 GPC (BGS)

Case 3:14-cv-01847-GPC-BGS Document 13 Filed 10/23/14 Page 1 of 6
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

On August 4, 2014, however, U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer determined

that because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims alleged

in Plaintiff’s Complaint occurred in Imperial, California, at Centinela (“CEN”) State

Prison, and the Defendants are all alleged to be employed at CEN, venue was proper in

the Southern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(d), § 1391(b). Therefore, Judge

Breyer transferred the case here pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), and did not rule on

Plaintiff’s pending Motions to Proceed IFP (ECF Doc. Nos. 8, 9) prior to transfer. See

Aug. 4, 2014 Order of Transfer (ECF Doc. No. 10). 

I.

MOTIONS 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 installments as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3)(b), 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

I:\Chambers Curiel\Civil - Odd\dismissal\14cv1847-deny-IFP-1915(g).wpd -2- 14cv1847 GPC (BGS)

Case 3:14-cv-01847-GPC-BGS Document 13 Filed 10/23/14 Page 2 of 6
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

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 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 contains no “plausible allegation” to 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)). Instead, Plaintiff alleges CEN officials violated the First,

Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights of the “SNY” (special needs yard) prisoners

on CEN’s “D” Facility on unspecified occasions by improperly screening their

administrative grievances and “mis-classifying” their “RVR’s” (rules violationsreports). 

See Compl. at 3-5. 

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. 

/ / /

I:\Chambers Curiel\Civil - Odd\dismissal\14cv1847-deny-IFP-1915(g).wpd -3- 14cv1847 GPC (BGS)

Case 3:14-cv-01847-GPC-BGS Document 13 Filed 10/23/14 Page 3 of 6
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

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, James William Brammer,

CDCR #C-59515, while incarcerated, has brought more than three prior civil actions and

appeals which were 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).

 They are:

1) Brammer v. Garcia, et al., S. D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:97-cv-1075-J-JAH

(S.D. Cal. June 15, 1998 Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss First Amended

and Supplemental Complaint for failing to exhaust administrative remedies and for

failing to state a claim pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 12(b), 12(b)(6) and 42 U.S.C.

§ 1997e(a)) (emphasis added) (ECF Doc. No. 76); and (Oct. 26, 1998 Certified Copy of

Judgment from USCA dismissing appeal) (ECF Doc. No. 83) (strike one);

2) Brammer v. Rocha, et al., E.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 2:03-cv-01176-WBSDAD (June 14, 2004 Order Adopting Findings and Recommendations (“F&Rs”) to

Dismiss Amended Complaintfor failing to state a claimupon which relief can be granted

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) and transferring remaining claims to S.D. Cal.) (ECF

Doc. No. 24); and S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:04-cv-1223-W-PCL (July 12, 2005 Order

Dismissing Third Amended Complaint for failing to state a claim without further leave

to amend pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (ECF Doc. No. 12); 225 Fed. Appx. 678,

2007 WL 867760 (9th Cir. March 21, 2007) (Memorandum); and (April 17, 2007 USCA

Judgment affirming the judgment of the USDC) (ECF Doc. No. 18) (strike two);

3) Brammer v. Mendoza-Powers, et al., E.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 1:10-cv01261-AWI-GBC (F&Rs re Dismissal of Action, with prejudice, for failure to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2) and

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)) (ECF Doc. No. 20), 2012 WL 1130616 (E.D. Cal. March 30, 2012);

(Aug. 8, 2012 Order & Judgment Adopting F&Rs and Dismissing Action with prejudice 

/ / /

I:\Chambers Curiel\Civil - Odd\dismissal\14cv1847-deny-IFP-1915(g).wpd -4- 14cv1847 GPC (BGS)

Case 3:14-cv-01847-GPC-BGS Document 13 Filed 10/23/14 Page 4 of 6
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

for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(b)(1) and (2)) (ECF Doc. Nos. 21, 22) (strike three); and

4) Brammer v. Richards, et al.,C.D.Cal.CivilCaseNo. 2:12-cv-08091-MWFRNB (March 4, 2014 Order and Judgment accepting F&Rs to Dismiss Second Amended

Complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A(b) and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1)) (ECF Doc. Nos. 29, 33,

34); and (June 10, 2014 Order by Ninth Circuit denying appellant’s motion to proceed

in forma pauperis, confirming district court’s certification to revoke plaintiff’s IFP status

on grounds that an appeal would not be taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a)(3), and finding Ninth Circuit Appeal No. 14-55479 “frivolous”) (ECF Doc.

No. 41) (strikes four and five).1

Accordingly, because Plaintiff has, while incarcerated, accumulatedmore than the

three “strikes” 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.”).

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

The Court has determined that all these cases have ripened into “strikes” under

1

§ 1915(g) because in each case, Plaintiff either exhausted his right to appeal, “did not

appeal,” or “his time to file a direct appeal expired,” before he sought leave to proceed

IFP in this case on July 25, 2014, and July 30, 2014. See Silva v. Vittorio, 658 F.3d

1090, 1100 & n.6 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that “a district court’s dismissal of a case does

not count as a ‘strike’ under § 1915(g) until the litigant has exhausted or waived his

opportunity to appeal.”).

I:\Chambers Curiel\Civil - Odd\dismissal\14cv1847-deny-IFP-1915(g).wpd -5- 14cv1847 GPC (BGS)

Case 3:14-cv-01847-GPC-BGS Document 13 Filed 10/23/14 Page 5 of 6
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

III.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

 For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby: 

(1) DENIES Plaintiff’s Motions to Proceed IFP (ECF Doc. Nos. 8, 9) 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 feesrequired by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); and 2

(3) CERTIFIES that an IFP appealfromthis Order would also be frivolous and

therefore, not taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). See Coppedge v.

United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962); Gardner v. Pogue, 558 F.2d 548, 550 (9th Cir.

1977) (indigent appellant is permitted to proceed IFP on appeal only if appeal would not

be frivolous).

The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 23, 2014

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

If Plaintiff wishes to pursue his claims while he is incarcerated, he must

2

commence a new and separate civil action by filing a complaint pursuant to

FED.R.CIV.P. 3 which is accompanied by the $400 in civil and administrative filing fees

required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). Plaintiff is further cautioned that because he is not

eligible to proceed IFP, he will also not be entitled to the U.S. Marshal service

authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) and FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(3). Finally, while Plaintiff is

a prisoner, any complaint he files will be subject to the screening required by 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a) and dismissed sua sponte if it is found frivolous or malicious, if it fails to

state a claim, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune, regardless

of whether he has paid the full filing fee. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1004

(9th Cir. 2010) (discussing 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) screening requirements).

I:\Chambers Curiel\Civil - Odd\dismissal\14cv1847-deny-IFP-1915(g).wpd -6- 14cv1847 GPC (BGS)

Case 3:14-cv-01847-GPC-BGS Document 13 Filed 10/23/14 Page 6 of 6