Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01465/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01465-0/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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM CECIL THORNTON,

CDCR #V-64547,

Civil No. 14cv1465 BTM (RBB)

Plaintiff, ORDER:

(1) DENYING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

AS BARRED BY 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) 

[ECF Doc. No. 2] 

AND 

(2) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION

WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR

FAILURE TO PAY FILING 

FEE REQUIRED BY 

28 U.S.C. § 1914(a)

vs.

MICHAEL SHANAHAN, CDCR Adult

Parole Agent; MARIA DOMINGUEZ,

CDCR Adult Parole Agent; RONALD

EDWARDS, San Diego Sheriff Sgt.,

Defendants.

WilliamCecil Thornton (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and currently incarcerated

at Valley State Prison, in Chowchilla, California, has filed a civil rights complaint

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims two state parole agents and a San Diego

County Sheriff’s Department Sergeant arrested him on October 17, 2013, for failing to

timely register as a sex offender in order to retaliate against him for having filed a

previous lawsuit. See Compl. (ECF Doc. No. 1) at 3-5. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief

“restraining” one of the defendants as well as general and punitive damages. Id. at 8.

-1- 14cv1465 BTM (RBB)

Case 3:14-cv-01465-BTM-RBB Document 4 Filed 10/10/14 Page 1 of 6
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 civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a);

instead, he has submitted a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (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 installments as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3)(b), the

Prison Litigation ReformAct (“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, orfailed to state

-2- 14cv1465 BTM (RBB)

Case 3:14-cv-01465-BTM-RBB Document 4 Filed 10/10/14 Page 2 of 6
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

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 pleading and has

ascertained that it contains no “plausible allegation” to 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)). Instead, Plaintiff’s alleges two state parole agents and

a San Diego County Sheriff’s Department Sergeant arrested him in late 2013 and filed

a “false report” charging him with failing to timely register as a sex offender in order

to retaliate against him for having filed a previous lawsuit in 2010. See Compl. at 3-5. 

A court “‘may take notice of proceedingsin 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, William Cecil Thornton,

CDCR #V-64547, has had more than three prior prisoner civil actions dismissed on the

grounds that they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief

may be granted.

-3- 14cv1465 BTM (RBB)

Case 3:14-cv-01465-BTM-RBB Document 4 Filed 10/10/14 Page 3 of 6
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) Thornton v. Neotti, et al., S. D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:10-cv-1677-LABBGS (S.D. Cal. January 3, 2011 Order Dismissing Second Amended Complaint for

Failing to State a Claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) & 1915A(b)) (ECF

Doc. No. 13); and (May 17, 2012 Mandate of USCA affirming the decision of the

USDC) (ECF Doc. No. 22) (strike one);

2) Thornton v. Cate, et al., S. D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:10-cv-1585-JLS-PCL

(S.D. Cal. June 28, 2011 Order Sua Sponte Dismissing Second Amended Complaint for

Failing to State a Claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b)) (ECF Doc.

No. 30); and (Dec. 16, 2011 Order of USCA dismissing appeal pursuant to NinthCircuit

Rule 42-1) (ECF Doc. No. 38) (strike two);

3) Thornton v. Cavalin, et al., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:11-cv-0108-BENCAB (S.D. Cal. July 19, 2011 Order Dismissing First Amended Complaint as Frivolous

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) & 1915A(b) (ECF Doc. No. 7); and (Dec. 13,

2011 Order of USCA dismissing appeal pursuant to NinthCircuitRule 42-1) (ECF Doc.

No. 13) (strike three);

4) Thornton v. Cavalin, et al., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:11-cv-2309-MMAPCL (S.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2012 Order Granting Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and

Dismissing Complaint as Frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b))

(ECF Doc. No. 3); (April 11, 2012 Order of USCA finding appeal frivolous and

directing appellate to pay $455 fee or face dismissal for failing to prosecute) (ECF Doc.

No. 9); and (May 10, 2012 Order of USCA dismissing appeal pursuant to Ninth Circuit

Rule 42-1) (strikes four and five); and

5) Thornton v. Deddeh, S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:11-cv-2401-LAB-KSC

(S.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2012 Order Granting Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and

Dismissing Civil Action as Frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b))

(ECF Doc. No. 5); (May 10, 2012 Order of USCA finding appealfrivolous and directing

appellant to pay $455 fee or face dismissal for failing to prosecute) (ECF Doc. No. 11);

-4- 14cv1465 BTM (RBB)

Case 3:14-cv-01465-BTM-RBB Document 4 Filed 10/10/14 Page 4 of 6
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

and (June 19, 2012 Order of USCA dismissing appeal pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule

42-1) (ECF Doc. No. 13) (strikes six and seven).

Accordingly, because Plaintiff has, while incarcerated, accumulated more than

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.”).

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 action sua sponte without prejudice for failing to prepay

the $400 civil and administrative filing fees required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); and 1

(3) CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal from this Order would also be frivolous

and therefore, not taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). See

Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962); Gardner v. Pogue, 558 F.2d 548,

If Plaintiff wishes to pursue his claims, he must commence a new and separate

1

civil action by filing a complaint pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 3 which is accompanied by

the $400 in civil and administrative filing feesrequired by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). Plaintiff

is further cautioned that because he is not eligible to proceed IFP, he will also not be

entitled to the U.S. Marshalservice authorized by 28 U.S.C.§ 1915(d) and FED.R.CIV.P.

4(c)(3). Finally, because Plaintiff is a prisoner, any complaint he files will be subject

to the screening required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and dismissed sua sponte if it is

found frivolous or malicious, if it failsto state a claim, or if itseeks monetary relief from

a defendant who is immune, regardless of whether he has paid the full filing fee. See

Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(b) screening requirements).

-5- 14cv1465 BTM (RBB)

Case 3:14-cv-01465-BTM-RBB Document 4 Filed 10/10/14 Page 5 of 6
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

550 (9th Cir. 1977) (indigent appellant is permitted to proceed IFP on appeal only if

appeal would not be frivolous).

The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 9, 2014

BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

-6- 14cv1465 BTM (RBB)

Case 3:14-cv-01465-BTM-RBB Document 4 Filed 10/10/14 Page 6 of 6