Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01218/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01218-0/pdf.json

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

---

1 

3:18-cv-1218-WQH-BLM 

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 

JEFFREY AARON MOORE,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN DOE, United States Marine Drill 

Instructor,

Defendant.

Case No.: 3:18-cv-1218-WQH-BLM

ORDER:

(1) DENYING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

AS BARRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) 

[ECF Doc. No. 2]; 

(2) DENYING MOTIONS TO 

APPOINT COUNSEL AND FOR 

“EMERGENCY STATUS” [ECF 

Doc. Nos. 2, 3];

(3) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION

WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR 

FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEE 

REQUIRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); 

Plaintiff, Jeffrey Aaron Moore, currently housed at the Mohave County Adult 

Detention Center located in Kingman, Arizona, has filed a civil action pursuant to Bivens 

v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

(ECF No. 1). Plaintiff has not prepaid the full civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 

Case 3:18-cv-01218-WQH-BLM Document 5 Filed 06/22/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

3:18-cv-1218-WQH-BLM

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

1914(a); instead, he has filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) (ECF No. 

2). In addition, Plaintiff has filed a “Motion to Appoint Counsel” along with a “Motion 

for Emergency Status.” (ECF Nos. 3, 4.)

I. Motion 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 “increments” as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3)(b), 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 

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 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,” 

Case 3:18-cv-01218-WQH-BLM Document 5 Filed 06/22/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

3:18-cv-1218-WQH-BLM

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

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 does not contain “plausible allegations” which 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)). While Plaintiff’s allegations are serious, they are 

allegations that arise from events that were alleged to have occurred in 1992 and 1993. 

(ECF No. 1 at 2–3). Plaintiff filed this action on June 7, 2018. Id. 

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. 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, while incarcerated, has brought at least three1 prior civil 

actions which have been 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).

///

 

1

 To date, Plaintiff has brought 22 civil rights action in the Arizona District Court since October of 

2016 and 15 appeals of these matters in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. See 

https://pcl.uscourts.gov/pcl/pages/search/findPartyAdvanced.jsf (website last visited June 18, 2018.)

Case 3:18-cv-01218-WQH-BLM Document 5 Filed 06/22/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

3:18-cv-1218-WQH-BLM

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

They are: 

1) Moore v. Mohave County, et al., Civil Case No. 16cv08242 PCT (DLR) (AZ

February 15, 2017) (Order Dismissing Action for failing to state a claim) 

(strike one);

2) Moore v. Flagstaff Medical Center, et al., Civil Case no. 16cv08259 PCL 

(DLR) (AZ February 21, 2017) (Order Dismissing Action for failing to state 

a claim) (strike three)

3) Moore v. Arizona Attorney General, et al., Civil Case No. 16cv08256 PCL 

(DLR) (AZ May 10, 2017) (Order Dismissing First Amended Complaint for 

failing to state a claim) (strike two);

Accordingly, because Plaintiff has, while incarcerated, accumulated at least 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.”).

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 3:18-cv-01218-WQH-BLM Document 5 Filed 06/22/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

3:18-cv-1218-WQH-BLM

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 Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF Doc. No. 2) 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 fees required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a).

(3) DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel and Motion for “Emergency 

Status” (ECF Doc. Nos. 3, 4) as moot. 

The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 22, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-01218-WQH-BLM Document 5 Filed 06/22/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5