Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04091/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04091-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STACEY E. RILEY, 

Plaintiff,

 vs.

OFFICER BRANDON SMITH, et al, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-4091 TEH (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE

DISMISSED UNDER 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915 (g)

(Docket Nos. 2, 7)

Plaintiff, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at San Quentin State

Prison and a frequent litigant in the federal courts, has filed a pro se complaint

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaining about allegedly unconstitutional actions of

police officers from Berkeley, California in pursuing rape charges against

Plaintiff. Plaintiff has also filed a motion seeking to proceed in forma pauperis

(docket nos. 2, 7).

Under the PLRA, a prisoner may not bring a civil action or appeal a civil

judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 "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); Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2005). For purposes

of a dismissal that may be counted under § 1915(g), the phrase "fails to state a

Case 3:07-cv-04091-TEH Document 13 Filed 12/03/07 Page 1 of 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 2

claim on which relief may be granted" parallels the language of Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and carries the same interpretation, the word "frivolous"

refers to a case that is "'of little weight or importance: having no basis in law or

fact,'" and the word "malicious" refers to a case "filed with the 'intention or desire

to harm another.'" Id. at 1121 (citation omitted). Only cases within one of these

three categories can be counted as strikes for § 1915(g) purposes, so the mere fact

that Plaintiff has filed hundreds of cases and appeals does not alone warrant

dismissal under § 1915(g). See id. Rather, dismissal of an action under §

1915(g) should only occur when, "after careful evaluation of the order dismissing

an [earlier] 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.

Andrews requires that the prisoner be given notice of the potential

applicability of § 1915(g). Id. Andrews implicitly allows the court to sua sponte

raise the § 1915(g) problem, but requires the court to notify the prisoner of the

earlier dismissals it considers to support a § 1915(g) dismissal and allow the

prisoner an opportunity to be heard on the matter before dismissing the action. 

See id. at 1120. A dismissal under § 1915(g) means that a prisoner cannot

proceed with his action as a pauper under § 1915(g), but he still may pursue his

claims if he pays the full filing fee at the outset of the action.

A review of the dismissal orders in Plaintiff's prior prisoner actions before

this Court and the United States District Court for the Eastern District of

California reveals that Plaintiff has had at least three such cases dismissed on the

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

relief may be granted. Plaintiff is now given notice that the Court finds the

following dismissals constitute applicable dismissals under § 1915(g): (1) Riley

Case 3:07-cv-04091-TEH Document 13 Filed 12/03/07 Page 2 of 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

 1The Court further notes that Plaintiff has additional cases that were dismissed

by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California for

undetermined reasons, including: Riley v. Baskerville, Case No. 2:95-cv-1357 (E.D.

Cal. Feb. 20, 1996), and Riley v. Solano State Prison, Case No. 2:96-cv-01664-LKKDAD (E.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 1997).

3

v. Warnok, Case No. 2:95 -cv-00830-WBS-JFM (E.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 1996) (order

of dismissal for failure to state a claim); (2) Riley v. Smith, Case No. 3:03-cv02098-TEH (N.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2003) (order of dismissal for failure to state a

claim); and (3) Riley v. Smith, Case No. 3:07-cv-01181-TEH (N. D. Cal. Mar. 7,

2007) (order of dismissal for failure to state a claim)1

. See Andrews, 398 F.3d at

1120 (sometimes the docket records may be sufficient, and sometime the actual

court files may need to be consulted).

In light of these orders, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in

writing filed no later than thirty (30) days from the date of this order why this

action should not be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff has not

alleged that his complaint is exempt from the requirements of § 1915(g) on the

grounds that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury as a result of the

allegations in the complaint. In the alternative to showing cause why this action

should not be dismissed, Plaintiff may avoid dismissal by paying the full $350.00

filing fee by the deadline. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: 11/28/07 THELTON E. HENDERSON

United States District Judge 

Case 3:07-cv-04091-TEH Document 13 Filed 12/03/07 Page 3 of 3