Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-07026/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-07026-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

ZANE M. HUBBARD,

Plaintiff,

v.

TIMOTHY M. LOCKWOOD, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-07026-JST 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 

PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT BE 

DENIED LEAVE TO PROCEED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS

Plaintiff, an inmate at California State Prison – Soledad, filed this pro se civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. 

The Court orders plaintiff to show cause, within twenty-eight (28) days of the date of this order, 

why plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis should not be denied pursuant to the 

three strikes provision set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

DISCUSSION

This action is governed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 (“PLRA”) which was 

enacted, and became effective, on April 26, 1996. The PLRA provides that a prisoner may not 

bring a civil action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, i.e., may not proceed in forma pauperis, “if the 

prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought 

an action . . . 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). For purposes of a dismissal 

that may be counted under Section 1915(g), the Ninth Circuit gave this guidance: The phrase 

“fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted” parallels the language of Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and apparently means the same thing. Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 

Case 4:19-cv-07026-JST Document 3 Filed 11/07/19 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

1121 (9th Cir. 2005). A case “is frivolous if it is ‘of little weight or importance: having no basis in 

law or fact.’” Id. (citation omitted). “A case is malicious if it was filed with the ‘intention or 

desire to harm another.’” Id. (citation omitted). “Not all unsuccessful cases qualify as a strike 

under § 1915(g). Rather, § 1915(g) should be used to deny a prisoner’s IFP status only when, 

after careful evaluation of the order dismissing an action, and other relevant information, the 

district court determines that the action was dismissed because it was frivolous, malicious or failed 

to state a claim.” Id. at 1121.

The Court finds that, prior to this date, plaintiff has had at least four cases dismissed that 

count as “strikes.” The Court takes judicial notice of: 1) Hubbard v. Mendes, E.D. Cal., Case No. 

1:13-cv-01078, ECF Nos. 11 & 13 (dismissed for failure to state a claim; allegations failed to state 

an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to safety or state an equal protection 

claim); 2) Hubbard v. Corcoran State Prison, E.D. Cal., Case No. 1:13-cv-01736, ECF Nos. 15 & 

17 (dismissed for failure to state a claim; allegations failed to state claims under the Eighth 

Amendment, Due Process Clause, Equal Protection Clause, or First Amendment, and failed to 

state claim for private right of action under cited state regulations); 3) Hubbard v. Marchak, E.D. 

Cal., Case No. 1:14-cv-00274, ECF Nos. 10 & 12 (dismissed for failure to state a claim; factual 

allegations insufficient to state a claim for excessive force, forced mental health treatment, 

discrimination, due process violation, and illegal surveillance and interrogation.); and 4) Hubbard 

v. Youngblood, N.D. Cal. Case No. 19-cv-05812 JST (PR) (dismissed for failure to state a claim; 

action barred by judicial immunity, allegations insufficient to state First Amendment or Eighth 

Amendment claim, no private right of action under cited state regulations and federal statute, and 

no respondeat superior liability).1 These actions were dismissed on the grounds that they failed to 

state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and therefore qualify as “strikes” under Section 

1915. 

 

1

In Case No. 1:19-cv-01346-LJO-EPG, Hubbard v. Youngblood (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge 

Grosjean has issued a recommendation that plaintiff be denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis

pursuant to the three-strikes provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See C No. 1:19-cv-01346-LJOEPG, Hubbard v. Youngblood, Findings and Recommendations, Recommending that Plaintiff’s 

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis Be Denied and that Plaintiff Be Required to Pay the 

$400.00 Filing Fee in Full (Oct. 10, 2019) [ECF No. 2]. The District Judge has not yet ruled on 

whether to adopt the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations. 

Case 4:19-cv-07026-JST Document 3 Filed 11/07/19 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 further notes that plaintiff has not alleged that he is under imminent danger of 

serious physical injury. The complaint alleges that plaintiff’s incarceration is illegal and, on that 

ground alone, his incarceration threatens his health and safety. The complaint further alleges that 

plaintiff is being discriminated against, that correctional officers are failing to carry out the duties 

set forth in various state regulations, that plaintiff is being unjustly prohibited from seeking redress 

in the courts, and that the 250+ prison grievances that he has filed have been unjustly denied or 

inadequately resolved. He seeks the following relief: release from unlawful confinement, that he 

not be required to pay court fees or fines to complain of government misconduct, and that the 

Court review the unjust disposition of the eighteen cases that he has filed in the Eastern District of 

California and the three cases that he has filed in the Northern District of California. These 

allegations do not concern physical injury, much less imminent physical injury. 

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, within twenty-eight (28) days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall show 

cause why his request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis should not be denied pursuant to the 

three strikes provision set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Failure to respond in accordance with this 

order will result in dismissal of this action without further notice to plaintiff pursuant to Rule 

41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to comply with a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 7, 2019

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 4:19-cv-07026-JST Document 3 Filed 11/07/19 Page 3 of 3