Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00327/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00327-0/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

CLARENCE JACKSON, 

Plaintiff,

 vs.

BERKELEY POLICE DEPARTMENT,

et al, 

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-0327 JSW (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE

DISMISSED UNDER 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915 (g)

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, a formerly incarcerated prisoner, has filed a pro se complaint

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that officers of the Berkeley Police Department

violated his civil rights. In this order, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause

why the complaint should not be dismissed based on 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), as set

forth below.

DISCUSSION

I Standard of Review

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which

prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a

governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must identify cognizable

claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint

"is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

Case 3:07-cv-00327-JSW Document 4 Filed 05/16/07 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

granted," or "seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such

relief." Id. § 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed, however. 

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two

elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States

was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting

under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

II P.L.R.A.

Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 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). 

The Ninth Circuit has recently considered the requirements for a dismissal

under the PLRA. Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2005). 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.'" Id. at 1121 (citation omitted). Only cases within one of these

three categories can be counted as strikes for § 1915(g) purposes, so the mere fact

that Plaintiff has filed many prior cases does not alone warrant dismissal under §

1915(g). See id. Rather, dismissal of an action under § 1915(g) should only

Case 3:07-cv-00327-JSW Document 4 Filed 05/16/07 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

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." Id.

Andrews requires that the 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. Id. 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. See id. at 1120. A dismissal under § 1915(g) means that a prisoner

cannot proceed with his action as a pauper under § 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 Plaintiff's 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 state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

Plaintiff is now given notice that this Court believes the following dismissals may

be counted as dismissals for purposes of § 1915(g): (1) Jackson v. Department of

Corrections, No. 3:94-cv-2389-CAL (N.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 1994) (order of

dismissal for failure to state a claim); (2) Jackson v. Cottman, No. 3:96-cv04035-CAL (N.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 1997) (order of dismissal for failure to present a

cognizable claim for relief); (3) Jackson v. Hurley, No. 3:91-cv-02170-BAC

(N.D. Cal. Nov. 24, 1993) (order of dismissal for failure to state a claim); (4)

Jackson v. Dept. of Corrections, No. 1:93-cv-05269-REC-GGH (E.D. Cal. Jan.

21, 1994) (order of dismissal as frivolous). This Court made its evaluation of

these cases based on reviewing the dismissal order or the docket sheet in each of

Case 3:07-cv-00327-JSW Document 4 Filed 05/16/07 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

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).

In light of these dismissals, and because Plaintiff does not appear to be

under imminent danger of serious physical injury, he is ORDERED TO SHOW

CAUSE in writing filed no later than thirty (30) days from the date of this

order why this action should not be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

Failure to do so will result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice for

failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

See Malone v. United States Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 133 (9th Cir. 1987) (a

court should afford the litigant prior notice before dismissing for failure to

prosecute). In the alternative to showing cause why this action should not be

dismissed, Plaintiff may avoid dismissal by paying the full $350.00 filing fee by

the deadline. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 16, 2007 JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge 

Case 3:07-cv-00327-JSW Document 4 Filed 05/16/07 Page 4 of 4