Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-03076/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-03076-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

Case No. C 14-3076 PSG (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JAMES LAVELL HARRIS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

LAKE COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPT., et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. C 14-3076 PSG (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

James LaVell Harris, proceeding pro se, has filed an amended civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Harris also was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Before

screening the amended complaint, the court orders Harris to show cause why his motion for

leave to proceed IFP should not be revoked.

I. DISCUSSION

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”) was enacted, and became effective,

on April 26, 1996. It provides that a prisoner may not bring a civil action IFP 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,

Case 5:14-cv-03076-PSG Document 16 Filed 05/11/15 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

1

 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

2

 Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). 

3

 See id. 

4

 Id. 

5

 Id.

6

 See id. at 1120. 

Case No. C 14-3076 PSG (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

2

unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.”1

For purposes of a dismissal that may be counted under Section 1915(g), the phrase “fails

to state a claim on which relief may be granted” parallels the language of Fed. R. Civ. P.

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.’”2

 Only cases within one of these three

categories can be counted as strikes for Section 1915(g) purposes.3

 Dismissal of an action under

Section 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.”4

A prisoner must be given notice of the potential applicability of Section 1915(g), by

either the district court or the defendants, but the prisoner nevertheless bears the ultimate burden

of persuasion that Section 1915(g) does not bar pauper status for him.5 The court may raise a

Section 1915(g) problem sua sponte, but must notify the prisoner of the earlier dismissals it

considers to support a Section 1915(g) dismissal and allow the prisoner an opportunity to be

heard on the matter before dismissing the action.6

 A dismissal under Section 1915(g) means that

a prisoner cannot proceed with his action as a pauper under Section 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 Harris’ prior prisoner actions reveals that he has had

at least three such cases dismissed on the ground that they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to

Case 5:14-cv-03076-PSG Document 16 Filed 05/11/15 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 7 See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1055 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Andrews II”). 

Case No. C 14-3076 PSG (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

3

state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Harris is now given notice that the court

believes the following federal district court dismissals may be counted as dismissals for purposes

of Section 1915(g): (1) Harris v. Business Transportation and Housing Agency, N.D. Cal. Case

No. C 07-0459 PJH (civil rights action dismissed for failure to state a claim and failure to follow

court orders), (2) Harris v. Lake County Jail, et al., N.D. Cal. Case No. C 09-3758 SI (civil

rights action dismissed for failure to state a claim ); (3) Harris v. Lake County Jail, et al., N.D.

Cal. Case No. C 09-5214 SI (same); (4) Harris v. Lake County Sheriff’s Department, N.D. Cal.

Case No. C 14-3305 PSG (same); (5) Harris v. Lake County Superior Court, N.D. Cal. Case No.

14-3652 PSG (civil rights action dismissed based on Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994)). 

The court made its evaluation of all five cases based on the dismissal orders.

In light of these dismissals, Harris is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing why

pauper status should not be denied and this action should not be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g). In the alternative to showing cause why this action should not be dismissed, Harris

may avoid dismissal by paying the full $400.00 filing fee by the deadline. 

In addition, if appropriate, Harris may demonstrate that this case falls within the

imminent danger exception to Section 1915(g). If Harris wants to do so, he needs to describe the

facts showing the imminent physical danger. It will suffice if he “makes a plausible allegation

that [he] faced ‘imminent danger of serious physical injury’ at the time of filing.”7

II. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the court hereby orders as follows:

Harris is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing no later than thirty (30) days from

the date of this order why his motion for leave to proceed IFP should not be denied and this

action should not be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). If Harris is so inclined, he may

avoid dismissal by paying the $400.00 filing fee. In any event, the court will continue to review

under Section 1915(g) all future actions filed by Harris while he is incarcerated in which he

seeks IFP status. Failure to file a timely response or failure to pay the full filing fee will result in

Case 5:14-cv-03076-PSG Document 16 Filed 05/11/15 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

Case No. C 14-3076 PSG (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

4

the dismissal of this action without further notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: PAUL S. GREWAL 

United States Magistrate Judge

5/11/2015

Case 5:14-cv-03076-PSG Document 16 Filed 05/11/15 Page 4 of 4