Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00518/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00518-0/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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\WQH\11cv00518-dsm-no-pay&1915(g).wpd 1 11cv0518 WQH (CAB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALLEN LEE RODRIGUEZ,

CDCR #V-35218,

Civil No. 11-0518 WQH (CAB)

Plaintiff, ORDER: 

1) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR 

FAILING TO PAY FILING FEE

REQUIRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) 

AND 

2) NOTING 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) 

BAR

vs.

WILLIAM D. GORE, Sheriff; 

SANFORD A. TOYEN, Legal Advisor;

THOMAS J. COOK, Sheriff; 

BRIAN CONWAY, Sheriff’s Lieutenant,

Defendants.

Plaintiff, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at California Rehabilitation Center in

Norco, California, and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983.

I. FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEE OR REQUEST IFP STATUS

All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the United

States, other than a writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $350. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a party’s failure to pay only if the party is granted

leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v.

Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). 

Plaintiff has not prepaid the $350 filing fee required to commence this action, nor has he

Case 3:11-cv-00518-WQH-CAB Document 3 Filed 03/29/11 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\WQH\11cv00518-dsm-no-pay&1915(g).wpd 2 11cv0518 WQH (CAB)

submitted a Motion to Proceed IFP. Therefore, the action is subject to immediate dismissal

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). And while Plaintiff has submitted a certified copy of his prison

trust account statement which suggests he may wish to proceed IFP [ECF No. 2], and the Court

would ordinarily grant him leave to file a formal motion and the affidavit required to support

such a request pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), it finds that he is no longer entitled to that

privilege. 

Section 1915 of Title 28 of the United States Code allows certain litigants to pursue civil

litigation IFP, that is, without the full prepayment of fees or costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2).

However, the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) amended section 1915 to preclude the

privilege to proceed 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) (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). 

“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 by section 1915(g) from pursuing any other IFP

Case 3:11-cv-00518-WQH-CAB Document 3 Filed 03/29/11 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\WQH\11cv00518-dsm-no-pay&1915(g).wpd 3 11cv0518 WQH (CAB)

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.”).

And while the PLRA does not require a prisoner to declare that § 1915(g) does not bar

a request to proceed IFP, Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1119, “[i]n some instances, the district court

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

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

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). Thus, this Court takes judicial notice

that Plaintiff, Allen Lee Rodriguez, CDC # V-35218, has already 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. They are:

1) Rodriguez v. Bobo, et al., Civil Case No. 10-1134 JAH (AJB) (S.D. Cal. Aug. 17,

2010) (Order dismissing First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii) & 1915A(b)(1) [ECF No. 14)) (strike

one); 

2) Rodriguez v. Silberman, et al., Civil Case No. 10-2201 MMA (RBB) (S.D. Cal.

Jan. 13, 2011) (Order dismissing First Amended Complaint for failing to state a

claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) & 1915A(b) [ECF No. 5]); and (S.D.

Cal. Feb. 22, 2011 Order denying reconsideration [ECF No. 9]) (strike two); and

3) Rodriguez v. Towery, et al., Civil Case No. 11-0152 JAH (WVG) (S.D. Cal.

March 22, 2011 Order dismissing action as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(b) [ECF No. 4]) (strike three).

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

Case 3:11-cv-00518-WQH-CAB Document 3 Filed 03/29/11 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\WQH\11cv00518-dsm-no-pay&1915(g).wpd 4 11cv0518 WQH (CAB)

pursuant to § 1915(g), and his present Complaint, which seeks to sue San Diego County

Sheriff’s Department officials for allegedly denying him access to court, concealing evidence

and “manufacturing” a criminal case against him (Compl. at 3-9), does not include any

“plausible allegation” of imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time of filing,

Plaintiff is not entitled the opportunity to proceed 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.”).

II. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby:

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

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

(2) NOTIFIES Plaintiff that he is now barred from proceeding IFP in future federal

civil actions or appeals while he is incarcerated pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g),

and

(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: March 29, 2011

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-00518-WQH-CAB Document 3 Filed 03/29/11 Page 4 of 4