Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-06191/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-06191-2/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, aka SONNY 

BARGER,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROBERT S. MUELLAR, et al.,

Defendants.

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

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Dkt. Nos. 12, 31 and 33

Plaintiff Gary Francis Fisher, aka Sonny Barger, a state prisoner and frequent 

litigant in federal court, 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. § 1915.1 

Fisher was ordered to show cause why the action should not be dismissed under 

section 1915(g), which provides that a prisoner may not bring a civil action IFP “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.” The 

order identified six prior federal court actions (“strikes”) that appeared to count under 

 

1 The action was transferred to this Court from the Eastern District.

Case 3:16-cv-06191-WHO Document 37 Filed 02/09/17 Page 1 of 4
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

section 1915(g); noted that Fisher had been designated a three-strikes litigant under the 

National Three-Strikes Database; and informed him could avoid dismissal by paying the 

filing fee by the deadline. 

In response, Fisher sent the Court eighteen filings: twelve letters, four motions or 

requests, a declaration, and one filing labelled as a response to the order to show cause. In 

none of these filings does he dispute that the federal actions cited by the Court qualify as 

strikes for purposes of § 1915(g). Rather, he alleges he was under imminent danger of 

serious physical injury at the time of filing, which therefore qualifies him for the exception 

under section 1915(g).

The plaintiff has the burden of proving that he meets the requirements of this 

exception to section 1915(g) by demonstrating that he is in imminent danger of serious 

physical injury. The plain language of the imminent danger clause indicates that 

“imminent danger” is to be assessed at the time of the filing of the complaint. See 

Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2007). The conditions that existed at 

some earlier or later time are not relevant. See id. and n.5 (post-filing transfer of prisoner 

out of the prison at which danger allegedly existed may have made moot his request for 

injunctive relief against the alleged danger, but it does not affect the section 1915(g) 

analysis). 

The Court “should not make an overly detailed inquiry into whether the allegations 

qualify for the exception.” Id. at 1055. It is sufficient if the complaint “makes a plausible 

allegation that the prisoner faced ‘imminent danger of serious physical injury’ at the time 

of filing.” Id.; see, e.g., id. at 1055 (allegation that plaintiff was at risk of contracting HIV 

or hepatitis C was sufficient to bring his complaint within the imminent danger exception); 

cf. Medberry v. Butler, 185 F.3d 1189, 1193 (11th Cir. 1999) (no ongoing danger where 

plaintiff had been placed in administrative segregation following physical assaults by 

fellow inmates and before he filed his complaint). In this circuit, “requiring a prisoner to 

allege[] an ongoing danger -- the standard adopted by the Eighth Circuit -- is the most 

sensible way to interpret the imminency requirement.” Andrews II, 493 F.3d at 1056 

Case 3:16-cv-06191-WHO Document 37 Filed 02/09/17 Page 2 of 4
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

(internal quotation marks omitted).

Here, the question is whether Fisher was in imminent danger on October 13, 2016, 

when he filed his complaint.2 The allegations fail to show that he was. In his complaint, 

plaintiff alleges a variety of claims, including an allegation that on November 27, 2013, 

several persons attempted to murder him at Pelican Bay State Prison.3 (Compl. at 3.) 

Because these alleged events occurred in 2013, three years before the time Fisher filed suit 

in 2016, they do not and cannot show that he was in imminent danger at the time of filing. 

His other allegations (a wrongful criminal conviction and unfilled FOIA requests) also do 

not qualify under the imminent danger exception. 

The allegations in his response to the order to show cause are also insufficient. 

Fisher alleges that he suffers from a brain injury; pain caused by a musculoskeletal 

condition (which also confines him to a wheelchair); waning ability to use his hands; and 

unrelated acts of past retaliation, discrimination, and delayed medical treatment from 

prison employees that occurred at different times at different prisons. (Response to Order 

to Show Cause, Dkt. No. 26, at 1-8.) He also alleges without elaboration that he is “at risk 

from assaults from an unknown enemy.” (Id. at 6.) These allegations of general and longstanding bad health and past unrelated acts of mistreatment do not show he “faced 

‘imminent danger of serious physical injury’ at the time of filing.” Andrews, 493 F.3d at 

1055 (allegation that plaintiff was at risk of contracting HIV or hepatitis C was sufficient 

to bring his complaint within the imminent danger exception). His allegation regarding an 

unknown enemy does not contain sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim of 

imminent serious physical injury. Other courts have found similar allegations raised by 

Fisher insufficient to qualify under the imminent danger exception. See, e.g., Barger v. 

 

2 The complaint was received and filed on October 13, 2016. Usually, the Court would not 

use this date as the filing date. Rather, it would use the date a plaintiff enters next to his 

signature on the complaint. This is not possible here because Fisher put “11-11-15” next 

to his signature. It is unlikely that Fisher put the complaint in the mail over a year ago. 

3 The accused persons are Robert S. Mueller, the former Director of the FBI; various 

employees of Pelican Bay State Prison; and another FBI agent. 

Case 3:16-cv-06191-WHO Document 37 Filed 02/09/17 Page 3 of 4
4

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

Kern County Superior Court, No. 1:14-cv-01628 LJO DLB PC (E.D. Cal. 2014); Barger v. 

Kern County Superior Court, No. 1:14-cv-01667 LJO SAB PC (E.D. Cal. 2014); and 

Barger v. Mueller, No. 1:16-cv-00444 AWI SKO PC (E.D. Cal. 2016). 

In sum, Fisher has not shown any reason that the restrictions of section 1915(g) 

should not be imposed. He failed to pay the filing fee; show that any of the strikes do not 

qualify under section 1915(g); show that he qualifies for the imminent danger exception; 

and otherwise show cause why this action should not be dismissed. 

Accordingly, Fisher’s IFP application (Dkt. No. 12) is DENIED. The action is 

DISMISSED without prejudice to Fisher bringing his claims in a new paid complaint. The 

Order to Show Cause is DISCHARGED. 

Fisher’s motion to produce documents (Dkt. No. 31) and his motion to be heard 

(Dkt. No. 33) are DENIED as moot. 

The Clerk shall terminate Dkt. Nos. 12, 31 and 33, enter judgment in favor of 

defendants, and close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 9, 2017

_________________________ 

WILLIAM H. ORRICK 

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-06191-WHO Document 37 Filed 02/09/17 Page 4 of 4