Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00250/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00250-1/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-00250-CAB-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,

CDC #BC6583,

Plaintiff,

v.

KAMALA HARRIS; GAVIN NEWSOM; 

CHRISTOPHER WRAY; ELAINE 

ALEXANDER; MICHAEL J. HERSEK; 

JULIE NAUMAN; MARYBEL BATJER; 

CITY OF SAN DIEGO; COUNTY OF 

SAN DIEGO,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:19-cv-00250-CAB-JLB

ORDER:

(1) DENYING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

AS BARRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) 

[ECF Doc. No. 2]

(2) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR 

FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEE 

REQUIRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a)

Plaintiff, Pedro Rodriguez, currently housed at Valley State Prison, located in 

Chowchilla, California, filed a civil rights Complaint (“Compl.”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. (ECF Doc. No. 1.) On February 4, 2019, United States Magistrate Judge 

Barbara McAuliffe determined that this action should have been filed in the Southern 

District of California and transferred the matter to this Court. (ECF Doc. No. 3.) 

/ / / 

Case 3:19-cv-00250-CAB-JLB Document 8 Filed 02/21/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

3:19-cv-00250-CAB-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

Plaintiff has not prepaid the full civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); 

instead, he has filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) (ECF Doc. No. 2). 

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.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:19-cv-00250-CAB-JLB Document 8 Filed 02/21/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

3:19-cv-00250-CAB-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

“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). 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)). 

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 three 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).

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:19-cv-00250-CAB-JLB Document 8 Filed 02/21/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

3:19-cv-00250-CAB-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

 They are: 

1) Rodriguez v. Robinson, et al., Civil Case No. 3:14-02770-LAB-WVG (S.D. 

Cal. Jan. 16, 2015) (Order Granting Motion to Proceed IFP and Dismissing 

Complaint for failing to state a claim) (ECF Doc. 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 Doc. No. 4.) (strike 

two); and

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 Doc. 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 Doc. No. 13) (strike four); and

5) Rodriguez v. Greco, et al., Case No. 15-56934 (9th Cir. Mar. 7, 2016) (Order 

finding appeal frivolous) (strike five).

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 3:19-cv-00250-CAB-JLB Document 8 Filed 02/21/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

3:19-cv-00250-CAB-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

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);

(3) 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).

The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 21, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-00250-CAB-JLB Document 8 Filed 02/21/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5