Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00113/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00113-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

FILED 

FEB 03 2016 

CLERK US DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

BY ".,« DEPUTY 

8 

9 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

10 

11 PEDRO RODRIGUEZ, 

12 Plaintiff, 

13 v. 

14 SHERIFF WILLIAM D. GORE, 

15 Defendant. 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

Case No.: 3:16-cv-00113-BEN-BLM 

ORDER: 

(1) DENYING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

AS BARRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) 

[ECF Doc. No.2]; AND 

(2) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR 

FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEE 

REQUIRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) 

21 Plaintiff Pedro Rodriguez, currently housed at the San Diego Central Jail, has filed 

22 a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No.1.) Plaintiff has not prepaid 

23 the full civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); instead, he filed a Motion to 

24 Proceed In Forma Pauperis ("IFP"). (ECF Doc. No.2.) 

25 I. Motion to Proceed IFP 

26 "All persons, not just prisoners, may seek IFP status." Moore v. Maricopa Cnty. 

27 Sheriff's Office, 657 F.3d 890, 892 (9th Cir. 2011). "Prisoners" like Plaintiff, however, 

28 "face an additional hurdle." Id. In addition to requiring prisoners to "pay the full amount 

3:16-cv-OOl13-BEN-BLM 

Case 3:16-cv-00113-BEN-BLM Document 3 Filed 02/03/16 Page 1 of 4
1 ofa filing fee," in "increments" as provided by 28 U.S.C. § J915(a)(3)(b), Williams v. 

2 Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2015), the Prison Litigation Reform Act 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

("PLRA") amended section 1915 to preclude the privilege to proceed IFP: 

[I]f [ a] prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or 

detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court ofthe United 

States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or 

fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, unless the prisoner is 

under imminent danger of serious physical injury. 

8 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). "This subdivision is commonly known as the 'three strikes' 

9 provision." Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1116 n.l (9th Cir. 2005) [hereinafter 

10 "King"]. 

11 "Pursuant to § 1915(g), a prisoner with three strikes or more cannot proceed IFP." 

12 Id.; see also Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2007) [hereinafter 

13 "Cervantes"] ("Prisoners who have repeatedly brought unsuccessful suits may entirely be 

14 barred from IFP status under the three strikes rule."). The objective of the PLRA is to 

15 further "the congressional goal of reducing frivolous prisoner litigation in federal court." 

16 Tierney v. Kupers, 128 F.3d 1310, 1312 (9th Cir. 1997). "[S]ection 1915(g)'s cap on 

17 prior dismissed claims applies to claims dismissed both before and after the statute's 

18 effective date." Id. at 1311. 

19 "Strikes are prior cases or appeals, brought while the plaintiff was a prisoner, 

20 which were dismissed on the ground that they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state 

21 a claim," King, 398 F.3d at 1116 n.l (internal quotation marks omitted), "even ifthe 

22 district court styles such dismissal as a denial ofthe prisoner's application to file the 

23 action without prepayment ofthe full filing fee." O'Neal v. Price, 531 F.3d 1146, 1153 

24 (9th Cir. 2008). Once a prisoner has accumulated three strikes, he is prohibited from 

25 pursuing any other IFP action in federal court unless he can show he is facing "imminent 

26 danger of serious physical injury." See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

27 II. Application to Plaintiff 

28 As an initial matter, the Court has carefully reviewed Plaintiffs Complaint and has 

2 

3:16-cv-OOI13-BEN-BLM 

Case 3:16-cv-00113-BEN-BLM Document 3 Filed 02/03/16 Page 2 of 4
1 ascertained that it does not contain "plausible allegations" which suggest he "faced 

2 'imminent danger of serious physical injury' at the time of filing." See Cervantes, 493 

3 F.3d at 1055 (noting section 1915(g)'s exception to the three strikes provision). 

4 A court "'may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without 

5 the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at 

6 issue.'" Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1225 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Bennett v. 

7 Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d 801,803 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002)); see also United States ex reI. 

8 Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992). 

9 Thus, this Court takes judicial notice that Plaintiff, while incarcerated, has brought 

10 at least three prior civil actions which have been dismissed on the grounds that they were 

11 frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

12 They are: 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

1) 

2) 

3) 

Rodriguez v. Robinson, et aI., Civil Case No.3: 14-cv-02770-LAB-WVG 

(S.D. Cal. Jan. 16,2015) (Order Granting Motion to Proceed IFP and 

Dismissing Complaint for failing to state a claim) (ECF No.4) (strike one); 

Rodriguez v. Mitchell, et al., Civil Case No.3: 14-cv-02708-GPC-WVG 

(S.D. Cal. Feb. 18,2015) (Order granting Motion to Proceed IFP and 

Dismissing Complaint for failing to state a claim and seeking monetary 

damages against immune defendants) (ECF No.4.) (strike two); and 

Rodriguez v. Stall, et al., Civil Case No. 3: 14-cv-02646-LAB-DHB (S.D. 

21 Cal. Apr. 23, 2015) (Order Dismissing First Amended Complaint for failing 

22 to state a claim) (ECF No. 11) (strike three). 

23 Accordingly, because Plaintiff has, while incarcerated, accumulated at least three 

24 "strikes,,,l and he fails to make a "plausible allegation" that he faced imminent danger of 

25 serious physical injury at the time he filed either of his complaints, he is not entitled to 

26 

27 

1 In fact, Plaintiff filed twelve separate civil rights actions in this Court beginning in 

28 2014. 

3 

3:l6-cY·OOI13-BEN-BLM 

Case 3:16-cv-00113-BEN-BLM Document 3 Filed 02/03/16 Page 3 of 4
1 the privilege of proceeding IFP in this action. See Cervantes, 493 F.3d at 1055; 

2 Rodriguez, 169 F.3d at 1180 (finding that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) "does not prevent all 

3 prisoners from accessing the courts; it only precludes prisoners with a history of abusing 

4 the legal system from continuing to abuse it while enjoying IFP status"); see also 

5 Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1231 (9th Cir. 1984) ("[C]ourt permission to proceed 

6 IFP is itself a matter of privilege and not right."). 

7 III. Conclusion and Order 

8 For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby: 

9 (1) DENIES Plaintiffs Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF Doc. No.2) as barred by 

10 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); and 

11 (2) DISMISSES this civil action sua sponte without prejudice for failing to 

12 prepay the $400 civil and administrative filing fees required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). 

13 The Clerk shall close the file. 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

ERED. 

Dated: , 2016 -~¥-"""-l:"" 

er T. Benitez 

United States District Judge 

4 

3:16-cv-OOI13-BEN-BLM 

Case 3:16-cv-00113-BEN-BLM Document 3 Filed 02/03/16 Page 4 of 4