Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-02069/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-02069-4/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

LEON E. MORRIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

TIM VIRGA et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:10-cv-2069 GEB DAD P

ORDER AND

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (“IFP”) with this civil 

rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is defendants’ motion 

to revoke plaintiff’s IFP status pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff has filed an opposition 

to that motion. 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is proceeding on his third amended complaint against defendants Turner, 

Whitted, Maksi, Biggs, Striegel, Green, Crawford, Guffee, Cruz, Low, Hernandez, and Brown. 

In his third amended complaint, plaintiff asserts a series of allegations against defendants that 

appear to state cognizable claims for relief for retaliation under the First Amendment. (Third Am. 

Compl. at 5-5F.)

/////

/////

Case 2:10-cv-02069-TLN-DAD Document 33 Filed 11/26/13 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

ANALYSIS

Defendants move to revoke plaintiff’s IFP status pursuant to the three-strikes rule of 28 

U.S.C. § 1915 based on their contention that courts have dismissed three or more of plaintiff’s 

civil actions or appeals as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim. (Defs’ Mot. at 3-7

& Req. for Judicial Notice Exs. A-F.) The court disagrees and will address each of the six 

lawsuits and appeals that defense counsel has characterized as “strikes”:

(1) Morris v. Duncan, No. C 02-0928 MJJ (PR) (N.D. Cal. May 3, 2002), was 

dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. (Defs.’ RJN Ex. A.) The court 

finds that this case constitutes a strike for purposes of § 1915(g).

(2) Morris v. Silvers, No. C 98-1381 BTM (LAB) (S.D. Cal. July 29, 1998), was 

dismissed on Younger abstention and ripeness grounds. (Defs.’ RJN Ex. B.) The court 

finds that this case does not constitute a strike for purposes of § 1915(g). See Moore v. 

Maricopa Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, 657 F.3d 890, 894 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[W]e conclude that 

Congress intended for the three-strikes rule to count 12(b)(6) dismissals but not 12(b)(1) 

dismissals.”). The abstention and ripeness doctrines go to the court’s subject matter 

jurisdiction and not to whether a claim is cognizable for purposes of Rule 12(b)(6). 

(3) Morris v. Lushia, No. C 00-55330 (9th Cir. Mar. 27, 2000), was dismissed 

because the order plaintiff challenged was neither final nor appealable. (Defs.’ RJN Ex. 

C.) The court finds that this case does not constitute a strike for purposes of § 1915(g). 

See Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1099 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissal of an appeal 

“must be final before it counts as a ‘strike’ for § 1915(g) purposes.”). Plaintiff’s 

premature appeal in this case was not final.

(4) Morris v. Lushia, No. C 00-56600 (9th Cir. Sept. 27, 2002), was dismissed 

because plaintiff did not pay the filing fee (i.e., for “failure to prosecute”). (Defs.’ RJN 

Ex. D.) The court finds that this case does not constitute a strike for purposes of § 

1915(g). See Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2005). Under these 

circumstances, failure to prosecute an appeal is not a qualifying ground under § 1915(g).

///// 

Case 2:10-cv-02069-TLN-DAD Document 33 Filed 11/26/13 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

(5) Morris v. Woodford, No. C 06-15869 (9th Cir. May 5, 2006), the Ninth 

Circuit submitted plaintiff’s appeal to the screening panel and it summarily affirmed the 

judgment. (Defs.’ RJN Ex. E.) Although another Magistrate Judge in this court has found 

summary affirmance on appeal constitutes a strike, see Case No. 2:09-cv-2486 GEB CKD 

P, the undersigned is not persuaded based on defendants’ motion and supporting exhibits 

that summary affirmance in this particular prior action brought by plaintiff is the 

equivalent of the Ninth Circuit dismissing the appeal on the grounds that the appeal was 

frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim. Moreover, even if summary affirmance 

and this prior action brought by plaintiff constitute a strike, defendants have not identified 

three strikes by plaintiff. At most, they have identified two even were this case to count as 

one. 

(6) Morris v. Woodford, No. C-08-15965 (9th Cir. Apr. 23, 2008), was dismissed 

because plaintiff did not pay the filing fee (i.e., for “failure to prosecute”). (Defs.’ RJN 

Ex. F.) The court finds that this case does not constitute a strike for purposes of § 

1915(g). See Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1122. As noted above, under these circumstances, 

failure to prosecute an appeal is not a qualifying ground under § 1915(g). 

In short, defendants have not demonstrated that plaintiff has incurred three strikes under 

28 U.S.C. § 1915 prior to filing this action.

1

 Accordingly, the court will recommend that 

defendants’ motion to revoke plaintiff’s IFP status be denied.

OTHER MATTERS

In support of the pending motion to revoke plaintiff’s IFP status, defendants have filed a 

request for judicial notice of case records from plaintiff’s prior causes of action. It is well 

 

1

This court has recently determined in two of plaintiff’s other cases before this court that he is 

not “struck out” for purposes of § 1915(g) because two of his prior cases, which defendants rely 

on as strikes in the pending motion, do not constitute strikes. See Morris v. Daly, Case No. 2:12-

cv-2845 LKK JFM (PC) (E.D. Cal. July 5, 2013) (reversing previous orders denying plaintiff 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis because Morris v. Silvers, No. C 98-1381 BTM (LAB) (S.D. 

Cal. July 29, 1998) and Morris v. Lushia, No. C 00-56600 (9th Cir. Sept. 27, 2002) do not 

constitute strikes); Morris v. Guffee, Case No. 2:13-cv-1171 TLN KJN P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 

2013) (deferring to Judge Karlton’s analysis in Morris v. Daly and vacating the “three strikes” 

finding in the case). 

Case 2:10-cv-02069-TLN-DAD Document 33 Filed 11/26/13 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

established that a court may take judicial notice of court records. See MGIC Indem. Co. v. 

Weisman, 803 F.2d 500, 505 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 

1980). Accordingly, the court will grant defendants’ request.

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants’ request for judicial notice (Doc. No. 27) is 

granted.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendants’ motion to revoke plaintiff’s IFP 

status pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (Doc. No. 26) be denied.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 

shall be filed and served within seven days after service of the objections. The parties are advised 

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Dated: November 25, 2013

DAD:9

morr2069.57

Case 2:10-cv-02069-TLN-DAD Document 33 Filed 11/26/13 Page 4 of 4