Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-02982/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-02982-0/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES LAVELL HARRIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-02982-EMC 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE

CONTEMPLATED DISMISSAL

Docket No. 1

James Lavell Harris, a/k/a Smiley James Harris, is incarcerated at the Lake County Jail in 

Lakeport, California. He has filed this pro se civil action and has applied to proceed in forma 

pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

A prisoner may not bring a civil action in forma pauperis 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). Section 1915(g) 

requires that the court consider prisoner actions dismissed before, as well as after, the statute's 

1996 enactment. Tierney v. Kupers, 128 F.3d 1310, 1311-12 (9th Cir. 1997).

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

a 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.’” Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th 

Case 3:19-cv-02982-EMC Document 11 Filed 09/20/19 Page 1 of 3
2

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

Northern District of California

Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). Only cases within one of these three categories can be counted as 

strikes for § 1915(g) purposes, so the mere fact that the prisoner has filed many cases does not 

alone warrant dismissal of the present action under § 1915(g). See Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1121. 

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.” Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1121.

Andrews requires that a prisoner be given notice of the potential applicability of § 1915(g), 

by either the district court or the defendants, but also requires the prisoner to bear the ultimate 

burden of persuasion that § 1915(g) does not bar pauper status for him. Andrews, 398 F.3d at 

1121. 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. Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1120. A dismissal under § 1915(g) means that a prisoner cannot 

proceed with his action as a pauper under § 1915, but he still may pursue his claims if he pays the 

full filing fee at the outset of the action.

Mr. Harris is now given notice that the Court believes the following dismissals may be 

counted as dismissals for purposes of § 1915(g): (1) Harris v. Lake County Jail, N.D. Cal. Case 

No. C 09-3758 SI (dismissed for failure to state a claim); (2) Harris v. Lake County Jail, N.D. Cal. 

Case No. C 09-5214 (dismissed for failure to state a claim); and (3) Harris v. Lake County 

Sheriff’s Department, N.D. Cal. Case No. C 14-3305 PSG (dismissed for failure to state a claim). 

The Court made its evaluation of these cases based on the dismissal orders and docket sheets in 

them. 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).

///

///

///

///

Case 3:19-cv-02982-EMC Document 11 Filed 09/20/19 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

In light of these dismissals, and because Mr. Harris does not appear to be under imminent 

danger of serious physical injury, he is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing filed no later 

than October 25, 2019, why in forma pauperis 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 the 

action should not be dismissed, Mr. Harris may avoid dismissal by paying the full $400.00 filing 

fee by the deadline.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 20, 2019

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-02982-EMC Document 11 Filed 09/20/19 Page 3 of 3