Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06396/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06396-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KIMOTHY R. McCRAY, 

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

EDWARD J. CADEN, et al.,

Defendant(s). 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-6396 CRB (PR)

ORDER 

(Doc # 3)

Plaintiff, a prisoner at Kern Valley State Prison and a frequent litigant in

federal court, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

alleging harassment and retaliation by correctional staff. Plaintiff seeks to

proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

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 or appeal a civil judgment 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)'s cap on prior dismissed

Case 3:06-cv-06396-CRB Document 4 Filed 11/13/06 Page 1 of 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 2

claims applies to claims dismissed both before and after the [PLRA's] effective

date." Tierney v. Kupers, 128 F.3d 1310, 1312 (9th Cir. 1997).

Plaintiff has had three or more prior prisoner actions dismissed by a

federal district court on the grounds that they are frivolous, malicious, or fail to

state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See, e.g., McCray v. Rodriguez,

No. C 06-4805 CRB (PR) (N.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2006) (order of dismissal);

McCray v. Rodriguez, No. C 06-5367 CRB (PR) (N.D. Cal. Sept. 7, 2006)

(same); McCray v. Rodriguez, No. C 06-6565 CRB (PR) (N.D. Cal. Oct. 26,

2006) (same). Plaintiff therefore may proceed in forma pauperis only if he is

seeking relief from a danger of serious physical injury which is “imminent” at the

time of filing. See Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307, 312 (3d Cir. 2001)

(en banc); Medberry v. Butler, 185 F.3d 1189, 1192-93 (11th Cir. 1999); Ashley

v. Dilworth, 147 F.3d 715, 717 (8th Cir. 1998); Banos v. O'Guin, 144 F.3d 883,

885 (5th Cir. 1998). He is not. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis

(doc # 3) accordingly is DENIED. 

Under the law of the circuit, plaintiff must be afforded an opportunity to

persuade the court that § 1915(g) does not bar pauper status for him. See

Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1120 (9th Cir. 2005). Within 30 days of this

order plaintiff may show cause why § 1915(g) does not bar pauper status for him.

Failure to show cause, or pay the requisite $ 350.00 filing fee, within the

designated time will result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice to

bringing it in a new paid complaint.

SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 13, 2006 CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge 

Case 3:06-cv-06396-CRB Document 4 Filed 11/13/06 Page 2 of 2