Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-05999/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-05999-0/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES DEAN TAYLOR,

Plaintiff,

 v.

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS,

Defendant.

_______________________/

No. C 09-05999 CW (PR) 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; REVOKING IFP STATUS

Plaintiff, a state prisoner and frequent litigant in this

Court, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. His motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis

(IFP) has been granted.

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 IFP 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 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

Case 4:09-cv-05999-CW Document 7 Filed 07/23/10 Page 1 of 5
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

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 three

such cases dismissed on the ground that they were frivolous,

malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted. Plaintiff is now given notice that the Court believes the

following dismissals may be counted as dismissals for purposes of

§ 1915(g): (1) Taylor v. California, No. C 05-2924 CW (PR) (N.D.

Cal. Jan. 17, 2006) (dismissed for failure to state a claim);

Case 4:09-cv-05999-CW Document 7 Filed 07/23/10 Page 2 of 5
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

3

Taylor v. Bailey, No. C 05-4953 CW (PR) (N.D. Cal. June 13, 2006)

(dismissed under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994)); and

(3) Taylor v. Kennedy, No. C 06-0749 CW (PR) (N.D. Cal. Oct. 26,

2006) (dismissed for failure to state a claim). Plaintiff

therefore may proceed in forma pauperis 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 light of the dismissals listed above, and because Plaintiff

does not appear to be under imminent danger of serious physical

injury, it is clear that leave to proceed IFP was granted

erroneously. It will be revoked, and Plaintiff will be afforded an

opportunity to pay the filing fee. See Banos v. O'Guin, 144 F.3d

883, 885 (5th Cir. 1998) (revoking IFP status on appeal on

three-strikes grounds); Patton v. Jefferson Corr. Center, 136 F.3d

458, 461, 465 (5th Cir. 1998) (district court correctly revoked IFP

upon discovering on remand that plaintiff had five prior strikes

and, when plaintiff failed to pay fee, properly dismissed case with

prejudice). Accordingly, leave to proceed IFP is REVOKED. 

Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing no later than

thirty (30) days from the date of this Order why his motion for

leave to proceed IFP should not be denied and this action should

not be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). If Plaintiff is

so inclined, he may avoid dismissal by paying the $350.00 filing

fee. In any event, the Court will continue to review under

Case 4:09-cv-05999-CW Document 7 Filed 07/23/10 Page 3 of 5
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

§ 1915(g) all future actions filed by Plaintiff while he is

incarcerated in which he seeks IFP status. 

Failure to file a timely response or failure to pay the full

filing fee in will result in the dismissal of this action without

further notice to Plaintiff.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 7/23/2010 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:09-cv-05999-CW Document 7 Filed 07/23/10 Page 4 of 5
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

G:\PRO-SE\CW\CR.09\Taylor5999.1915(g)-OSC.wpd 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES DEAN TAYLOR et al,

Plaintiff,

 v.

US COURT OF APPEALS et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV09-05999 CW 

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 July 23, 2010, 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.

James Dean Taylor K05216

California State Prison - Soledad

P.O. Box 689, C-106

Soledad, CA 93960

Dated: July 23, 2010

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Nikki Riley, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:09-cv-05999-CW Document 7 Filed 07/23/10 Page 5 of 5