Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02457/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02457-0/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

3:17-cv-02457-CAB-JLB

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

BOBBY GENE GLOVER,

CDCR #K-46066,

Plaintiff,

vs.

PARAMO, Warden;

DIRECTOR OF THE CALIFORNIA 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:17-cv-02457-CAB-JLB

ORDER:

1) DENYING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

AS BARRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) 

[ECF No. 2]

AND

2) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR 

FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEE 

REQUIRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a)

BOBBY GENE GLOVER (“Plaintiff”), a prisoner incarcerated at Richard J. 

Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”) in San Diego, California, and proceeding pro se, 

filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on December 6, 2017. See

Compl., ECF No. 1.

Plaintiff did not prepay the civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) to 

commence a civil action at the time of filing; instead, he has filed a Motion for Leave to 

proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (ECF No. 2).

Case 3:17-cv-02457-CAB-JLB Document 8 Filed 02/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
2

3:17-cv-02457-CAB-JLB

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

Plaintiff has since filed supplemental documentation, including updated copies of his 

prison trust account records, in support of his Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF Nos. 4, 7). 

I. 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 “monthly installments” or “increments” as provided by 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a)(3)(b), Bruce v. Samuels, __ U.S. __, 136 S. Ct. 627, 629 (2016); Williams v. 

Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2015), 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).

“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). 

“[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 

Case 3:17-cv-02457-CAB-JLB Document 8 Filed 02/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
3

3:17-cv-02457-CAB-JLB

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

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); see also El-Shaddai v. Zamora, 833 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2016) 

(noting that when court “review[s] 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.’”) (quoting Blakely v. Wards, 738 F.3d 607, 615 (4th Cir. 2013)).

Once a prisoner has accumulated three strikes, he is prohibited by section 1915(g) 

from pursuing any other IFP civil action or appeal in federal court unless he alleges 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.”).

“The exception’s use of the present tense, combined with its concern only with the 

initial act of ‘bring[ing]’ the lawsuit, indicates to us that the exception applies if the 

danger existed at the time the prisoner filed the complaint.” Id. at 1053 (citing United 

States v. Jackson, 480 F.3d 1014, 1018-19 (9th Cir. 2007) (noting the use of tenses in 

statutes generally is significant and “one would not refer in the present tense to something 

that had already happened” (citing The Dictionary Act, 1 U.S.C. § 1)). “In other words, 

the availability of the exception turns on the conditions a prisoner faced at the time the 

complaint was filed, not at some earlier or later time.” Id. at 1053.

II. Discussion

As an initial matter, the Court has carefully reviewed Plaintiff’s Complaint, and 

has ascertained that it does not contain any “plausible allegations” 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)). 

Instead, Plaintiff claims the Warden of RJD and the Director of the California 

Department of Corrections (“CDC”) have failed to “operate in compliance with” various 

Case 3:17-cv-02457-CAB-JLB Document 8 Filed 02/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
4

3:17-cv-02457-CAB-JLB

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

provisions of Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations and the CDC’s “Operations 

Manual” insofar as they have refused to provide him, and other inmates and parolees,

with “qualified assistance” for their “legal problems.” See ECF No. 1 at 1. 

Nothing in Plaintiff’s Complaint, however, plausibly suggests he faced any 

ongoing or “imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time he filed his 

Complaint on December 6, 2017. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Byrd v. Dir. of Corr., No. 

3:15-CV-2339-GPC-KSC, 2016 WL 773229, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 29, 2016) (finding 

prisoner’s allegations of having been denied access to court and discriminated against 

based on race and religion insufficient to invoke § 1915(g)’s imminent danger exception);

Pierce v. Obama, No. 14-CV-0691 BEN KSC, 2014 WL 4959030, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 

2, 2014) (citing Skillern v. Edenfield, No. CV–610–044, 2010 WL 5638731, at *2 (S.D.

Ga. Dec. 21, 2010) (allegations of improper interference with mail affecting prisoner’s 

access to court are “plainly inadequate” to bring his case within the imminent danger 

exception in section 1915(g)); Ball v. Allen, No. 06–496–CG, 2007 WL 484547, at *2 

(S.D. Ala. Feb.8, 2007) (finding claims of denial of access to court, obstruction of justice, 

and interference with outgoing mail did not result in imminent danger that may result in 

serious physical harm)).

And while Defendants typically carry the burden to show that a prisoner is not 

entitled to proceed IFP, Andrews, 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)); Gerritsen v. 

Warner Bros. Entm’t Inc., 112 F. Supp. 3d 1011, 1034 (C.D. Cal. 2015), and “‘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 

Case 3:17-cv-02457-CAB-JLB Document 8 Filed 02/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
5

3:17-cv-02457-CAB-JLB

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

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).

Therefore, this Court finds that Plaintiff Bobby Gene Glover, identified as CDCR 

#K-46066, has had three prior prisoner civil actions or appeals dismissed on the grounds 

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

granted.

They are: 

1) Glover v. Evans, Civil Case No. 3:07-cv-02731-JSW (N.D. Cal., Oct. 15, 

2007 Order of Dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)) (“Plaintiff’s complaint fails 

to state a claim under § 1983 and must be DISMISSED.”) (ECF No. 11 at 3) (strike one);

2) Glover v. Yates, Civil Case No. 1:10-cv-00580-SKO (E.D. Cal., Nov. 12, 

2010 Order Dismissing Claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)) (“Plaintiff’s complaint 

fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”) (ECF No. 18 at 4), see also ECF 

No. 24 (Order of USCA in Ninth Circuit Appeal No. 10-17704 summarily affirming

district court’s judgment) (strike two); and 

3) Glover v. Evans, et al., Civil Case No. 3:07-cv-01759-JSW (N.D. Cal., Dec. 

5, 2011 Order Granting Motion to Dismiss for failing to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 12(b)(6)) (ECF No. 57) (strike three).

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

pursuant to § 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 civil action. See Cervantes, 493 F.3d at 

1055; Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1180 (9th Cir. 1999) (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.”).

///

Case 3:17-cv-02457-CAB-JLB Document 8 Filed 02/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
6

3:17-cv-02457-CAB-JLB

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

III. Conclusion and Order

 For the reasons set forth above, the Court:

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

U.S.C. § 1915(g);

2) DISMISSES this civil action without prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure 

to prepay 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). 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); and

4) DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 6, 2018

Case 3:17-cv-02457-CAB-JLB Document 8 Filed 02/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6