Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01003/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01003-0/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

3:19-cv-1003-WQH-JLB

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

PEDRO RODRIGUEZ,

Booking #14745493,

CDCR #BC-6583,

Plaintiff,

vs.

WILLIAM GORE, Sheriff; 

FEMALE SERGEANT, San Diego 

Central Jail; SENIOR DOCTOR, 

San Diego Central Jail,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:19-cv-1003-WQH-JLB

ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL 

ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PAY 

FILING FEE REQUIRED BY 

28 U.S.C. § 1914(a)

Plaintiff, Pedro Rodriguez, while temporarily held in custody at the San Diego 

Sheriff Department’s George Bailey Detention Facility (“GBDF”), filed this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 17, 2019.1(See Compl., ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff 

 

1 The Court takes judicial notice of another civil rights complaint recently filed by 

Rodriguez, attached to which are exhibits which show he has been committed to the 

custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), was 

Case 3:19-cv-01003-WQH-JLB Document 4 Filed 07/03/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
2

3:19-cv-1003-WQH-JLB

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

claims the San Diego County Sheriff, an unidentified sergeant, and an unidentified doctor 

violated his Eighth Amendment rights and interfered with his right to petition for redress 

on May 9, 2019 during a transfer from GBDF to the SDCJ. (Id. at 3-7.) He seeks declaratory 

relief and $75,000 in punitive damages. (Id. at 9.)

Plaintiff did not pay the civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) at the time 

he filed his Complaint and has not filed a Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). However, on June 17, 2019, he filed a “Request for 

Judicial Notice,” in which he asks the Court to liberally construe his Complaint to include 

an IFP Motion although “not in correct format.” (ECF No. 3.)

I. Request for Judicial Notice re IFP

A. Standard of Review

“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 

... additional hurdle[s].” Id.

Specifically, in addition to requiring prisoners to “pay the full amount of a filing 

fee,” in “monthly installments” or “increments” as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3)(b), 

Bruce v. Samuels, __ U.S. __, 136 S. Ct. 627, 629 (2016); 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 

 

formerly incarcerated at Valley State Prison (“VSP”), and is also identified as CDCR 

Inmate #BC-6583. See Rodriguez v. Gore, et al., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:19-cv-0771-

CAB-RBM (S.D. Cal. April 25, 2019) (ECF No. 1, Ex. A at 14). In that case, Rodriguez 

explained he was temporarily transferred from VSP to the San Diego Central (“SDCJ”) Jail 

on March 21, 2019, in order to appear for an “administrative re-sentencing” in San Diego 

Superior Court. See id.; Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1225 (9th Cir. 2007) (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.”) (citation omitted).

Case 3:19-cv-01003-WQH-JLB Document 4 Filed 07/03/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
3

3:19-cv-1003-WQH-JLB

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

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).

“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 the action without 

prepayment of the full filing fee.” O’Neal v. Price, 531 F.3d 1146, 1153 (9th Cir. 2008). 

When courts “review a dismissal to determine whether it counts as a strike, the style of the 

dismissal or the procedural posture is immaterial. Instead, the central question is whether 

the dismissal ‘rang the PLRA bells of frivolous, malicious, or failure to state a claim.’” ElShaddai v. Zamora, 833 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Blakely v. Wards, 738 

F.3d 607, 615 (4th Cir. 2013)).

Once a prisoner has accumulated three strikes, section 1915(g) prohibits his pursuit 

of any subsequent IFP civil action or appeal in federal court unless he faces “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.”).

Case 3:19-cv-01003-WQH-JLB Document 4 Filed 07/03/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
4

3:19-cv-1003-WQH-JLB

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

B. Discussion

Plaintiff claims that on May 9, 2019, he was told he would be transferred from GBDF 

to the SDCJ. (See Compl., ECF No. 1 at 4.) When he learned he would be separated from 

“11 boxes of legal work,” he objected, but an unidentified Sheriff’s Department Sergeant 

nevertheless directed two deputies to cuff him for transport. (Id.) Plaintiff again objected, 

claimed he was disabled, needed a cane, and could not be cuffed behind his back, but the 

Sergeant replied, “You look fine to me.” (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff further contends San Diego 

County Sheriff William Gore, and an unidentified “senior doctor” at the SDCJ, violated 

his Eighth Amendment rights by “initiating a policy” that permits “untrained medical 

personnel,” like the Sergeant, to ignore prisoners’ medical needs. (Id. at 6-7.) However, 

his Complaint does not include any “plausible allegations” 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)).

And while Defendants typically carry the initial burden to produce evidence 

demonstrating a prisoner is not entitled to proceed IFP, Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1119, “in 

some instances, the district court docket may be sufficient to show that a prior dismissal 

satisfies at least one on the criteria under § 1915(g) and therefore counts as a strike.” Id. at 

1120. That is the case here.

A court may take judicial notice of its own records, see Molus v. Swan, Civil Case 

No. 3:05-cv-00452-MMA-WMC, 2009 WL 160937, *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2009) (citing 

United States v. Author Services, 804 F.2d 1520, 1523 (9th Cir. 1986)); Gerritsen v. 

Warner Bros. Entm’t Inc., 112 F. Supp. 3d 1011, 1034 (C.D. Cal. 2015), and “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). 

/ / /

Case 3:19-cv-01003-WQH-JLB Document 4 Filed 07/03/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
5

3:19-cv-1003-WQH-JLB

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

Therefore, this Court takes judicial notice of its own records and finds that Plaintiff 

Pedro Rodriguez, currently identified as San Diego County Sheriff’s Department Inmate 

Booking No. 14745493, and as CDCR Inmate #BC-6583, while incarcerated, has filed five 

prior civil actions or appeals that were dismissed on the grounds that they were frivolous, 

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

They are: 

1) Rodriguez v. Robinson, et al., Civil Case No. 3:14-cv-02770-LABWVG (S.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2015) (Order Granting Motion to Proceed IFP and 

Dismissing Complaint for failing to state a claim) (ECF No. 4) (strike one);

2) Rodriguez v. Mitchell, et al., Civil Case No. 3:14-cv-02708-GPC-WVG 

(S.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2015) (Order granting Motion to Proceed IFP and 

Dismissing Complaint for failing to state a claim) (ECF No. 4.) (strike two); 

3) Rodriguez v. Stall, et al., Civil Case No. 3:14-cv-02646-LAB-DHB 

(S.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2015) (Order Dismissing First Amended Complaint for 

failing to state a claim) (ECF No. 11) (strike three);

4) Rodriguez v. Greco, et al., Civil Case No. 3:15-cv-02040-DMS-JLB 

(S.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2016) (Order Dismissing Second Amended Complaint for 

failing to state a claim) (ECF No. 13) (strike four); and

5) Rodriguez v. Pierce, et al., Appeal No. 16-55150 (9th Cir. July 19, 

2016) (Order denying IFP on appeal based on frivolousness) (Dkt. No. 14); 

(9th Cir. Aug. 25, 2016) (Order dismissing appeal for failing to perfect 

appeal) (Dkt. No. 16) (strike five).2

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

“strikes” 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 

 

2 See Richey v. Dahne, 807 F.3d 1202, 1208 (9th Cir. 2015) (finding that appellate court’s 

denial of prisoner’s request for IFP status on appeal on grounds of frivolousness constituted 

a “strike” under § 1915(g) “even though [it] did not dismiss the appeal until later when the 

[appellant] did not pay the filing fee.”).

Case 3:19-cv-01003-WQH-JLB Document 4 Filed 07/03/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
6

3:19-cv-1003-WQH-JLB

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

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.”).

II. Conclusion 

 For the reasons explained, the Court:

(1) DISMISSES this civil action without prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure to 

pay the $400 civil and administrative filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a);

(2) DENIES Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice (ECF No. 3) seeking leave to 

proceed IFP as barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); 

(3) CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal would not be taken in good faith pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); and

(4) DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to enter a judgment of dismissal and to close 

the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 3, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-01003-WQH-JLB Document 4 Filed 07/03/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6