Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01253/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01253-0/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

3:18-cv-01253-WQH-MDD

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

ERIC CHATMAN,

CDCR #BD-5474,

Plaintiff,

vs.

JACK IN THE BOX, Oceanside; 

JACK IN THE BOX, Santa Ana; 

JACK IN THE BOX CORPORATION, 

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:18-cv-01253-WQH-MDD

ORDER

HAYES, Judge:

Eric Chatman, a prisoner incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison in Soledad, 

California, and proceeding pro se, has filed a Complaint alleging personal injury, premises 

liability, general negligence, and intentional tort claims against two Jack in the Box 

restaurants and the Jack in the Box Corporation. (ECF No. 1). Chatman appears to claim

that he was shot after going through the drive-thru and while parked in his father’s van at 

two separate Jack in the Box restaurants—one in Oceanside, and another in Santa Ana, 

sometime in 1991, and again in 2016–2017. Id. at 5–7. Chatman seeks more than $178 

million in “lump sum” damages and ownership interests in Jack in the Box and other 

corporate entities. Id. at 5.

Case 3:18-cv-01253-WQH-MDD Document 8 Filed 08/21/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

3:18-cv-01253-WQH-MDD

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

Chatman did not pay the civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) at the time 

he submitted his Complaint; instead, he filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

(“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (ECF No. 2), together with a Motion to Appoint 

Counsel (ECF No. 3).1

I. Motion to Proceed IFP

A. Standard of Review

“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 . . . additional hurdle[s].” Id. For examples, Plaintiffs granted permission to proceed 

IFP must “pay the full amount of a filing fee” in “monthly installments” or “increments” 

as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3)(b). Bruce v. Samuels, 136 S. Ct. 627, 629 (2016). 

Additionally, a prisoner may not proceeding IFP 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 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). “Pursuant to § 

1915(g), a prisoner with three strikes or more cannot proceed IFP.” Id. “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 v. King, 

398 F.3d at 1116 n.1 (internal quotations omitted), “even if the district court styles such 

 

1 Chatman repeats most of the allegations in his Complaint in an ex parte letter to the judges assigned 

to this matter filed on July 6, 2018 (ECF No. 5). Because Chatman has violated S.D. Cal. Local Civil 

Rule 83.9, which provides that “attorneys or parties to any action must refrain from writing letters to the 

judge,” he is cautioned that “[p]ro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other 

litigants.” King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). Any additional ex parte letters that Chatman

attempts to file in this matter may be summarily rejected under Local Rule 83.9.

Case 3:18-cv-01253-WQH-MDD Document 8 Filed 08/21/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

3:18-cv-01253-WQH-MDD

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

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). When courts 

“review a dismissal to determine whether it counts as a strike, the style of the dismissal or 

the procedural posture is immaterial. Instead, the central question is whether the dismissal 

‘rang the PLRA bells of frivolous, malicious, or failure to state a claim.’” El-Shaddai v. 

Zamora, 833 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Blakely v. Wards, 738 F.3d 607, 

615 (4th Cir. 2013)).

B. Discussion

The Court has reviewed Chatman’s Complaint and finds that is contains no 

“plausible allegations” to suggest he “faced ‘imminent danger of serious physical injury’ 

at the time of filing.” Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1055 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)). Instead, 

as described above, Chatman claims that he was shot by unknown assailants after buying 

food at two fast food restaurants in 1991, and again in 2016–2017. See Compl. at 6–7. 

Chatman’s allegations are insufficient to plausibly show ongoing or “imminent” danger of 

any serious physical injury.

While Defendants typically carry the burden to show that a prisoner is not entitled 

to proceed IFP, Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d at 1119, “in some instances, the district court 

docket may be sufficient to show that a prior dismissal satisfies at least one on the criteria 

under § 1915(g) and therefore counts as a strike.” Id. at 1120. That is the case here.

A court may take judicial notice of its own records. See Molus v. Swan, Civil Case 

No. 3:05-cv-00452–MMA-WMC, 2009 WL 160937, *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2009) (citing 

United States v. Author Services, 804 F.2d 1520, 1523 (9th Cir. 1986)). Courts also “‘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)).

This Court takes judicial notice that Chatman, identified as CDCR Inmate #BD5474, has had four prior prisoner civil actions dismissed in this district alone on the grounds 

Case 3:18-cv-01253-WQH-MDD Document 8 Filed 08/21/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

3:18-cv-01253-WQH-MDD

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

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

granted. They are: 

1) Chatman v. Toyota of Escondido, et al., Civil Case No. 3:17-cv-01853-BASJLB (S.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2017) (Order Granting Motion to Proceed IFP and Dismissing Civil 

Action for Failing to State a Claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and without 

leave to amend) (ECF No. 18) (“strike one”);

2) Chatman v. Cush Acura, et al., Civil Case No. 3:17-cv-01852-WQH-JLB

(S.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2017) (Order Granting Motion to Proceed IFP and Dismissing Civil 

Action for Failing to State a Claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and without 

leave to amend) (ECF No. 20) (“strike two”);

3) Chatman v. Super 8 Motel, et al., Civil Case No. 3:17-cv-02517-DMS-JMA 

(S.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2018) (Order Denying Motion to Proceed IFP and Dismissing Civil 

Action for Failing to State a Claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and without 

leave to amend) (ECF No. 6) (“strike three”); and 

4) Chatman v. Super 8 Motel Co., et al., Civil Case No. 3:18-cv-00213-BASNLS (S.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 2018) (Order Granting Motion to Proceed IFP and Dismissing 

Civil Action for Failing to State a Claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and

without leave to amend) (ECF No. 6) (“strike four”).2

Because Chatman has accumulated more than three “strikes” pursuant to § 1915(g) 

and fails to allege that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he 

 

2 Chatman has also been denied leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) in several 

subsequent cases: Chatman v. Cush Honda, et al., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:18-cv-00414-JLS-KSC 

(March 26, 2018 Order) (ECF No. 5); Chatman v. Super 8 Motel Corp., et al., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 

3:18-cv-00436-CAB-RBB (March 19, 2018 Order) (ECF No. 6); Chatman v. Liquor Store, et al., S.D. 

Cal. Civil Case No. 3:18-cv-00563-GPC-JMA (May 14, 2018 Order) (ECF No. 8); Chatman v. Ferrari 

Newport, et al., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:18-cv-00655-CAB-MDD (May 15, 2018 Order) (ECF No. 6); 

Chatman v. Beverly Hills Lamborghini, et al., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:18-cv-00668-DMS-JMA (April 

16, 2018 Order) (ECF No. 3); Chatman v. Citibank Corp., et al., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:18-cv-00748-

LAB-AGS (April 23, 2018 Order) (ECF No. 3); Chatman v. Chatman, S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:18-cv00835-CAB-PCL (June 4, 2018 Order) (ECF No. 5); and Chatman v. Cush Acura, et al., S.D. Cal. Civil 

Case No. 3:18-cv-01235-WQH-MDD (July 20, 2018 Order) (ECF No. 8).

Case 3:18-cv-01253-WQH-MDD Document 8 Filed 08/21/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

3:18-cv-01253-WQH-MDD

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

filed his Complaint, he is not entitled to proceed IFP in this action. See Andrews, 493 F.3d 

at 1055.

II. Motion to Appoint Counsel

Chatman has also filed a Motion to Appoint Counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(1) (ECF No. 3). However, a motion to appoint counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(1) necessarily depends upon Chatman’s ability to proceed IFP. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(1) (“The court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford 

counsel.”). Even where a prisoner is eligible to proceed IFP, granting a prisoner’s motion 

to appoint counsel is within “the sound discretion of the trial court” and should only be 

done “in exceptional circumstances.” Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 

(9th Cir. 2004). Because Chatman has failed to allege the presence of exceptional 

circumstances here, and is not entitled to proceed IFP in this case, he is also not entitled to 

the appointment of counsel under § 1915(e)(1).

III. Conclusion 

The Court:

1. DENIES the Motions to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 2) and Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 3);

2. DISMISSES this civil action without prejudice for failure to pay the full statutory and 

administrative $400 civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a);

3. CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal from this Order would be frivolous and therefore, would 

not be taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); and

4. DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter judgment and close the file.

Dated: August 21, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-01253-WQH-MDD Document 8 Filed 08/21/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5