Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01586/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01586-0/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEITH JEROME WRIGHT,

Plaintiff,

v.

RODRIGUEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:23-cv-01586 GSA (PC)

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW 

CAUSE WHY HIS IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

STATUS SHOULD NOT BE REVOKED IN 

LIGHT OF 28 U.S.C. 1915(g)

(See ECF No. 7)

PLAINTIFF’S SHOWING OF CAUSE DUE 

SEPTEMBER 24, 2024

KEITH JEROME WRIGHT,

Plaintiff,

v.

ZALDIVAR-GALVES,

Defendant.

No. 1:24-cv-01029 GSA (PC)

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW 

CAUSE WHY HIS APPLICATION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS 

SHOULD NOT BE DENIED IN LIGHT OF 28 

U.S.C. 1915(g)

(See ECF No. 2)

PLAINTIFF’S SHOWING OF CAUSE DUE 

SEPTEMBER 24, 2024

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed civil rights actions in the abovereferenced matters seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The cases were referred to a United 

States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

Case 1:23-cv-01586-JLT-GSA Document 10 Filed 09/03/24 Page 1 of 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

2

For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff will be ordered to show cause why: (1) his in 

forma pauperis status in Wright v. Rodriguez, No. 1:23-cv-01586 GSA (“Wright I”) (see Wright 

I, ECF No. 7) should not be revoked, and (2) his application to proceed in forma pauperis in 

Wright v. Zaldivar-Galves, No. 1:24-cv-01029 GSA (“Wright II”) (see Wright II, ECF No. 2) 

should not be denied in light of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

I. RELEVANT FACTS

On November 9, 2023, Plaintiff’s complaint in Wright I and his application to proceed in 

forma pauperis were docketed. Wright I, ECF Nos. 1, 2. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff’s 

application to proceed in forma pauperis was granted. Wright I, ECF No. 7.

On August 29, 2024, Plaintiff’s complaint in Wright II was docketed along with an 

application to proceed in forma pauperis. Wright II, ECF Nos. 1, 2. Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis 

application is still pending before this Court.

II. APPLICABLE LAW

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) states:

In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil

action or proceeding under this section 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.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

III. DISCUSSION

A. Plaintiff Appears to be a Three Strikes Litigant Within the Meaning of Section 

1915(g)

The Court takes judicial notice1of the following cases of Plaintiff’s that were fully 

1

 A court may take judicial notice of its own records. See United States v. Howard, 381 F.3d 

873, 876 n.1 (9th Cir. 2004); see United States v. Author Servs., Inc., 804 F.2d 1520, 1523 (9th 

Cir. 1986) overruled on other grounds, United States v. Jose, 131 F.3d 1325, 1328-29 (9th Cir. 

1997).

Case 1:23-cv-01586-JLT-GSA Document 10 Filed 09/03/24 Page 2 of 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

3

adjudicated at the time he filed Wright I and Wright II. These matters appear to constitute strikes 

within the meaning of Section 1915(g):

• Wright v. Sacramento Police Department, No. 2:13-cv-02125 EFB (E.D. Cal. Aug 8, 

2014) (dismissed for failure to amend after determination that matter failed to state a 

claim);2

• Wright v. Bank of America, 2:16-cv-01858 MCE CKD (E.D. Cal. Jan 31, 2017) 

(dismissal for failure to amend after determination that matter failed to state a claim), 

and

• Wright v. Sherman, No. 1:21-cv-01111 DAD SAB (E.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2022) 

(voluntary dismissal after determination that complaint failed to state a claim);3

B. Plaintiff Was Not in Imminent Danger When He Filed Wright I and Wright II

In addition, a review of Wright I and Wright II indicates that Plaintiff did not make 

plausible claims in those complaints that he was in imminent danger of serious physical harm at 

the time he filed each of these matters. See Wright I, ECF No. 1 (complaint); Wright II, ECF No. 

1 (complaint). For these reasons, Plaintiff is precluded from proceeding in forma pauperis in 

either action and must pay the filing fees for these cases in full before he may proceed any further 

in them. However, prior to being ordered to do so, he will be allowed to show cause: (1) why his 

in forma pauperis status in Wright I should not be revoked, and (2) why his application to proceed 

in forma pauperis in Wright II should not be denied. He will be given twenty-one days to file the 

2

 The dismissal of a complaint after (1) a court has determined that it fails to state a claim, and 

(2) a plaintiff is granted leave to amend, yet he fails to do so, constitutes a strike under Section 

1915(g). See Harris v. Mangum, 863 F.3d 1133, 1143 (9th Cir. 2017).

3

 A voluntary dismissal after it has been determined that a complaint fails to state a claim still 

constitutes a strike within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Harris v. Mangum, 863 F.3d 

1133 (9th Cir. 2017) (style of dismissal immaterial when determining if dismissal counts as 

strike; question is whether dismissal “rang the [Prison Litigation Reform Act] bells of frivolous, 

malicious, or failure to state a claim’); Sumner v. Tucker, 9 F. Supp. 2d 641, 643-44 (E.D. Va. 

1998) (voluntary dismissal does not relieve plaintiff of consequences of filing frivolous action 

under Section 1915(g)); Heilman v. Deillen, No. 14-cv-6298 JVS FFM, 2017 WL 10591881, at 

*4-5 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2017) (“[I]t would frustrate the purposes of § 1915(g) if plaintiff 

avoided a strike merely because he, rather than the court, instigated the dismissal of an action that 

he acknowledged was non-viable.”).

Case 1:23-cv-01586-JLT-GSA Document 10 Filed 09/03/24 Page 3 of 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

4

showings of cause.

Accordingly, consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff is ordered to SHOW CAUSE in Wright v. Rodriguez, No. 1:23-cv-01586 

GSA why his in forma pauperis status should not be REVOKED. See Wright I, ECF No. 7.

2. Plaintiff is ordered to SHOW CAUSE in Wright v. Zaldivar-Galvez, No. 1:24-cv01029 GSA why his application to proceed in forma pauperis should not be DENIED. See

Wright II, ECF No. 2, and

3. Plaintiff’s showings of cause in both cases shall be filed simultaneously, and they may 

be identical in content, and

4. Both showings of cause shall be filed within twenty-one days from the date of this 

order – i.e., by September 24, 2024.

Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to comply with this order within the time allotted 

may result in a recommendation that this matter be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 2, 2024 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-01586-JLT-GSA Document 10 Filed 09/03/24 Page 4 of 4