Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00508/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00508-0/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

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

DARRYL DUNSMORE,

CDCR No. AD-6237,

LUIS GONZALEZ

Case No. 14cv0508 LAB (JMA)

Plaintiffs, ORDER: 

(1) DISMISSING PLAINTIFF

GONZALEZ; 

(2) DENYING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

AS BARRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)

(ECF Doc. No. 2);

AND 

(3) DISMISSING CASE FOR

FAILURE TO PAY FILING 

FEE REQUIRED BY 

28 U.S.C. § 1914(a)

vs.

PARAMO, Warden; LT. GARZA, C/O

Officer; HAMILTON, Officer; NEOTTI,

Warden; BRENDA CASH, Warden; JANE

DOE, Medical Personnel; JOHN DOE,

Medical Personnel; JOHN/JANE DOE,

Correctional Officer,

Defendants.

Plaintiffs Darryl Dunsmore and Luis Gonzalez, inmates currently incarcerated at the

Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility located in San Diego, California and proceeding pro

se, have filed this civil rights action. Plaintiff Dunsmore did not prepay the civil filing fee

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\14cv0508-dny-IFP-1915(g).wpd 1 14cv0508 LAB (JMA)

Case 3:14-cv-00508-LAB-JMA Document 5 Filed 04/23/14 Page 1 of 5
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

required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) at the time he filed his Complaint; instead, he submitted a

Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (ECF Doc. No.

2). Plaintiff Luis Gonzalez has not file a Motion to Proceed IFP. 

I. REPRESENTATION

Plaintiff Dunsmore purports to bring this action on behalf of Plaintiff Gonzalez. 

However, because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, he has no authority to represent the legal

interest of any other party. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.1 (9th Cir. 1995);

C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987); see also

FED.R.CIV.P. 11(a) (“Every pleading, written motion, and other paper shall be signed by at least

one attorney of record in the attorney’s original name, or if the party is not represented by an

attorney, shall be signed by the party.”). Here, purported Plaintiff Gonzalez has not signed the

Complaint nor has he filed his own Motion to Proceed IFP. Accordingly, the Court

DISMISSES Plaintiff Gonzalez from this action. 

II. PLAINTIFF’S 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 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

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\14cv0508-dny-IFP-1915(g).wpd 2 14cv0508 LAB (JMA)

Case 3:14-cv-00508-LAB-JMA Document 5 Filed 04/23/14 Page 2 of 5
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

“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,” 

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 bysection 1915(g) frompursuing anyother 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)). The claims that Plaintiff raises in his Complaint have been previously litigated by

Plaintiff in separate matters. 

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). This Court takes judicial notice that

Plaintiff has had 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.

/ / /

/ / /

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\14cv0508-dny-IFP-1915(g).wpd 3 14cv0508 LAB (JMA)

Case 3:14-cv-00508-LAB-JMA Document 5 Filed 04/23/14 Page 3 of 5
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) Dunsmore v. San Diego County Sheriff’s Dep’t, et al., Civil Case No. 11cv0083

IEG (WVG) (S.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2011) (Order dismissing Second Amended

Complaint for failing to state a claim) (strike one);

2) Dunsmore v. Dominitz, et al., Civil Case No. 11cv2386 BEN (DHB) (S.D. Cal.

June 11, 2012) (Order dismissing Second Amended Complaint for failing to state

a claim and for seeking monetary damages against immune defendants) (strike

two); and

3) Dunsmore v. State of California, et al., Civil Case No. 12cv1936 JAH (DHB)

(S.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2013) (Order granting motion to proceed in forma pauperis

and dismissing First Amended Complaint for failing to state a claim and as

frivolous) (strike three).

Accordingly, because Plaintiff has, while incarcerated, accumulated three “strikes” as

defined by § 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 onlyprecludes prisoners with a history of abusing the legal systemfromcontinuing

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) DISMISSES Plaintiff Gonzalez from this action.

(2) DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF Doc. No. 2) as barred by 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g);

(3) DISMISSES this action sua sponte without prejudice for failing to prepay the

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\14cv0508-dny-IFP-1915(g).wpd 4 14cv0508 LAB (JMA)

Case 3:14-cv-00508-LAB-JMA Document 5 Filed 04/23/14 Page 4 of 5
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

$350 filing fee pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); and1

(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, 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: April 21, 2014

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

If Plaintiff wishes to pursue his claims, he must commence a new and separate civil action by 1

filing a complaint pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 3 which is accompanied by the $400 filing fee required by

28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). Plaintiff is further cautioned that because he is not eligible to proceed IFP, he is

also not entitled to the U.S. Marshal service authorized by28 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 fails to state

a claim, or if it seeks monetary relieffrom 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).

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\14cv0508-dny-IFP-1915(g).wpd 5 14cv0508 LAB (JMA)

Case 3:14-cv-00508-LAB-JMA Document 5 Filed 04/23/14 Page 5 of 5