Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-02127/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-02127-0/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUMAH THOMAS MOORE-ALI,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JEANNE WOODFORD, et al.,

Defendants..

____________________________________/

JUMAH ALI-THOMAS MOORE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

A. LAMARQUE, et al., 

 Defendants.

____________________________________/

No. C 05-3201 SBA (PR)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

CONSOLIDATE CASES AND

DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT

PREJUDICE TO FILING A

MOTION TO REOPEN UPON

PAYING FULL FILING FEE

No. C 06-02127 SBA (PR) 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

CONSOLIDATE CASES;

REVOKING FILING OF

COMPLAINT IN CASE NO. C 05-

3201 SBA (PR); AND CLOSING

CASE NO. C 05-3201 SBA (PR)

Plaintiff, a state prisoner and frequent litigant in this Court, has filed two pro se civil rights

complaints pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has also filed applications for in forma pauperis

status. Plaintiff has also filed a motion to consolidate both actions, and a motion for leave to file

an amended complaint.

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) was enacted, and became effective, on

April 26, 1996. It provides that a prisoner may not bring a civil action in forma pauperis under 28

U.S.C. § 1915 "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). 

For purposes of a dismissal that may be counted under § 1915(g), the phrase "fails to state

Case 4:06-cv-02127-SBA Document 12 Filed 01/16/08 Page 1 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

a claim on which relief may be granted" parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(6) and carries the same interpretation, the word "frivolous" refers to a case that is "of little

weight or importance: having no basis in law or fact," and the word "malicious" refers to a case

"filed with the 'intention or desire to harm another.'" Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th

Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). Only cases within one of these three categories can be counted as

strikes for § 1915(g) purposes. See id. Dismissal of an action under § 1915(g) should only occur

when, "after careful evaluation of the order dismissing an [earlier] action, and other relevant

information, the district court determines that the action was dismissed because it was frivolous,

malicious or failed to state a claim." Id. 

Andrews requires that the prisoner be given notice of the potential applicability of

§ 1915(g), by either the district court or the defendants, but also requires the prisoner to bear the

ultimate burden of persuasion that § 1915(g) does not bar pauper status for him. Id. Andrews

implicitly allows the Court to raise the § 1915(g) problem sua sponte, but requires the Court to

notify the prisoner of the earlier dismissals it considers to support a § 1915(g) dismissal and allow

the prisoner an opportunity to be heard on the matter before dismissing the action. See id. at 1120. 

A dismissal under § 1915(g) means that a prisoner cannot proceed with his action as a pauper

under § 1915(g), but he still may pursue his claims if he pays the full filing fee at the outset of the

action.

A review of the dismissal orders in Plaintiff's prior prisoner actions in this Court reveals

that Plaintiff has had at least four such cases dismissed on the ground that they were frivolous,

malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. In one of Plaintiff's

previous actions before this Court, Case No. C 04-0814 SBA (PR), Defendants gave Plaintiff

notice that the following dismissals may be counted as dismissals for purposes of § 1915(g): 

(1) Moore v. McElheney, et al., No. S-01-2003 GEB DAD P (E.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2001) (civil rights

action dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted); (2) Moore v.

Twomey, No. S-01-2180 FCD DAD P (E.D. Cal. July 15, 2002) (same); (3) Moore v. County of

Case 4:06-cv-02127-SBA Document 12 Filed 01/16/08 Page 2 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 Both parties incorrectly refer to this case as Case No. S-01-0176 FCD PAN P; however, the

record shows that the correct case number is Case No. S-02-0176 FCD PAN P. (Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss,

Ex. C.) Because both the Dismissal Order as well as the Findings and Recommendations from the

Eastern District in Case No. S-02-0176 FCD PAN P were attached to Defendants' motion and supplied

to Plaintiff, the Court finds that both parties were referring to Case No. S-02-0176 FCD PAN P

whenever they referred to "Case No. S-01-0176 FCD PAN P" in their briefs.

3

Sacramento, et al., No. S-02-0176 FCD PAN P (E.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2003) (same);1

 and (4) Moore

v. Rimmer, et al. , No. S-04-0314 MCE DAD P (E.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2005) (same). In Case No. C

04-0814 SBA (PR), Plaintiff had the opportunity to respond to the aforementioned dismissals the

Court could consider to support a § 1915(g) dismissal. Plaintiff did not dispute that two of his

prior lawsuits, Case Nos. S-01-2003 GEB DAD P and S-02-0176 FCD PAN P -- both dismissed

for failure to state a claim -- count as "strikes." (Pl.'s Opp'n in Case No. C 04-0814 SBA (PR) at 6-

7.) As to Case No. S-01-2180 FCD DAD P, Plaintiff argued that the claim was dismissed "in

order for plaintiff to first receive a favorable result in his criminal petition for writ of habeas

corpus." (Id. at 6.) However, a review of the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations,

which were adopted in full in the district court's Dismissal Order, do not make any mention of

such a reason. (Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss in Case No. C 04-0814 SBA (PR), Ex. B.) In fact, the

Dismissal Order states, "This action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon

which relief can be granted." (Id.) Although this Court has listed four dismissals, only three prior

dismissals need qualify under § 1915(g). Therefore, even without considering the fourth case,

Case No. S-04-0314 MCE DAD P, Plaintiff's three dismissals in Case Nos. S-01-2003 GEB DAD

P, S-02-0176 FCD PAN P and S-01-2180 FCD DAD P may be counted as dismissals for purposes

of § 1915(g).

Plaintiff therefore may proceed IFP only if he is seeking relief from a danger of serious

physical injury which is "imminent" at the time of filing. See Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d

307, 312 (3d Cir. 2001) (en banc); Medberry v. Butler, 185 F.3d 1189, 1192-93 (11th Cir. 1999);

Ashley v. Dilworth, 147 F.3d 715, 717 (8th Cir. 1998); Banos v. O'Guin, 144 F.3d 883, 885 (5th

Cir. 1998). He is not. In view of this, Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis accordingly

is DENIED.

Case 4:06-cv-02127-SBA Document 12 Filed 01/16/08 Page 3 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

The Court finds that, pursuant to Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1121, Plaintiff has been given

notice of the potential applicability of § 1915(g) by Defendants in their motion requesting the

Court to revoke Plaintiff's IFP status filed in Case No. C 04-0814 SBA (PR). As mentioned above,

Plaintiff has responded by filing an opposition to Defendants' motion in Case No. C 04-0814 SBA

(PR); however, he has failed to meet his burden of showing that § 1915(g) does not bar pauper

status for him. Therefore, a dismissal under § 1915(g) is proper because Plaintiff has had an

opportunity to be heard on the matter before dismissing the action. See id. at 1120. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, 

1. Plaintiff's motion to consolidate both actions is GRANTED. 

2. The Clerk is ordered to revoke filing of the complaint in Case No. C 06-2127 SBA

(PR) and to file it as a supplement to the original complaint in Case No. C 05-3201 SBA (PR).

3. Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint in Case No. 05-3201 SBA

(PR) is GRANTED. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) (A plaintiff may amend his complaint once as a

matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served.). The Clerk of the Court is

directed to file the amended complaint attached to Plaintiff's motion, and docket the

aforementioned document as Plaintiff's "Amended Complaint." The Clerk of Court is further

directed to mark the Amended Complaint as filed on April 27, 2007, the date it was received by

the Court. 

4. The Clerk shall close Case No. C 06-2127 SBA (PR). Plaintiff's application for in

forma pauperis status in Case No. C 06-2127 SBA (PR) is terminated as moot because no filing fee

is due as this action was opened in error.

5. Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis in Case No. C 05-3201 SBA (PR) is

DENIED. The complaint filed in Case No. C 05-3201 SBA (PR) is hereby DISMISSED without

prejudice to Plaintiff's filing a motion to reopen no later than thirty (30) days from the date of this

Case 4:06-cv-02127-SBA Document 12 Filed 01/16/08 Page 4 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 The Court notes that Case No. C 05-3201 SBA (PR) was filed on August 8, 2005. The

requisite filing fee at that time was $250.00, and it did not increase to $350.00 until April 9, 2006.

P:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.05\Moore05-3201&06-2127.consolidate&dismiss.frm 5

Order accompanied by the full filing fee of $ $ 250.00.2 See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The Clerk of

the Court shall close the file in Case No. C 05-3201 SBA (PR).

6. The Clerk of the Court shall terminate all motions in Case Nos. C 05-3201 SBA

(PR) and C 06-2127 SBA (PR). The Clerk shall close both files as indicated above.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 1/15/08 

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-02127-SBA Document 12 Filed 01/16/08 Page 5 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

P:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.05\Moore05-3201&06-2127.consolidate&dismiss.frm 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MOORE-ALI,

Plaintiff,

 v.

WOODFORD et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV05-03201 SBA 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on January 16, 2008, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing

said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle

located in the Clerk's office.

Jumah Thomas Moore-Ali

Pelican Bay State Prison

D-62389

PO Box 7000

Crescent City, CA 95532

Dated: January 16, 2008

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:06-cv-02127-SBA Document 12 Filed 01/16/08 Page 6 of 6