Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-06191/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-06191-1/pdf.json

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

GARY FRANCIS FISHER,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROBERT S. MUELLAR,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-06191-WHO (PR) 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Plaintiff Gary Francis Fisher, aka Sonny Barger II, aka Gary Dale Barger, a state 

prisoner and frequent litigant in federal court, has filed this federal civil rights action 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 along with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) under 

28 U.S.C. § 1915. Fisher is ordered to show cause on or before January 16, 2017 why 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) does not bar pauper status in these actions. 

A prisoner may not bring a civil action or appeal a civil judgment 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). 

Case 3:16-cv-06191-WHO Document 16 Filed 12/02/16 Page 1 of 3
2

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

Northern District of California

Under the law of this Circuit, plaintiff must be afforded an opportunity to persuade 

the Court that § 1915(g) does not bar pauper status for him. See Andrews v. King, 398 

F.3d 1113, 1120 (9th Cir. 2005). 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 sua sponte the 

§ 1915(g) problem, 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. Id. 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. 

Here, Fisher has had at least three prior prisoner actions or appeals dismissed 

by a federal court on the grounds that they are frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim 

upon which relief may be granted: 

(1) Fisher v. FBI, No. 1:13-cv-0414 LJO SAB P (E.D. Cal. 2013) (dismissed for 

failure to state a claim); 

(2) Barger v. FBI, No. 1:13-cv-0535 DLB P (E.D. Cal. 2013) (dismissed for 

failure to state a claim); 

(3) Barger v. Casey et al., No. 2:13-cv-8889 UA MAN P (C.D. Cal. 2013) 

(dismissed as frivolous, malicious or fails to state a claim); 

(4) Fisher v. Bivens, Six Unknown Agents, No. 2:14-cv-01439 UA MAN P (C.D. 

Cal. 2014) (dismissed for failure to state a claim); 

(5) Barger v. Hardy, et al., No. 2:15-cv-01373-VBF-MAN (C.D. Cal. 2015) 

(dismissed for failure to state a claim); and 

(6) Barger v. Tucker, et al., No. 2:15-cv-02464-VBF-MAN (C.D. Cal. 2015) 

(dismissed for failure to state a claim). 

Case 3:16-cv-06191-WHO Document 16 Filed 12/02/16 Page 2 of 3
3

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

Northern District of California

The Court also takes judicial notice of the National Pro Se Three-Strikes Database, 

which designates Fisher a three-strikes litigant. See http://nprose.circ9.dcn/Litigant.aspx. 

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

serious physical injury that 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). 

In light of these dismissals, and because Fisher does not appear to be under 

imminent danger of serious physical injury, the Court now orders him to show cause why 

IFP status should not be denied and these actions should not be dismissed pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(g). Fisher’s response to this order to show cause is due no later than 

January 16, 2017. No extensions of time will be granted. The response must clearly be 

labeled “RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE.” In the alternative to showing 

cause why this action should not be dismissed, Fisher may avoid dismissal by paying the 

full filing fee of $400.00 by the deadline. 

Failure to file a response, or pay the full filing fee, by January 17, 2017 will result 

in the dismissal of this action without prejudice to bringing his claims in a new paid 

complaint. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 2, 2016

_________________________ 

WILLIAM H. ORRICK 

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-06191-WHO Document 16 Filed 12/02/16 Page 3 of 3