Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00576/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00576-0/pdf.json

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

---

18cv576

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY WHITE,

CDCR #G-37720,

Plaintiff,

v.

W.L. MONTGOMERY,

Defendant.

Case No.: 18-cv-00576-BAS-BGS

ORDER:

(1) DENYING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

AS BARRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) 

[ECF No. 2]; 

(2) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR 

FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEE 

REQUIRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); 

AND

(3) DENYING MOTION TO 

APPOINT COUNSEL AS MOOT 

[ECF No. 3]

Plaintiff Larry White, currently housed at Calipatria State Prison, has filed a civil 

rights Complaint (“Compl.”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff has not 

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

Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) (ECF No. 2), along with a Motion to 

Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 3). 

Case 3:18-cv-00576-BAS-BGS Document 4 Filed 03/27/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
18cv576

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

LEGAL STANDARD

“All persons, not just prisoners, may seek IFP status.” Moore v. Maricopa Cty.

Sheriff’s Office, 657 F.3d 890, 892 (9th Cir. 2011). “Prisoners,” like Plaintiff, however, 

“face an additional hurdle.” Id. In addition to requiring prisoners to “pay the full amount 

of a filing fee,” in “increments” as provided by 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(3)(b), Williams v. 

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

amended Section 1915 to preclude the privilege to proceed IFP:

. . . if [a] 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 can be granted, 

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

28 U.S.C. §1915(g). “This subdivision is commonly known as the ‘three strikes’ 

provision.” Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1116 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005) (hereafter 

“Andrews”). “Pursuant to §1915(g), a prisoner with three strikes or more cannot proceed 

IFP.” Id.; see also Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2007) (hereafter 

“Cervantes”) (under the PLRA, “[p]risoners who have repeatedly brought unsuccessful 

suits may entirely be barred from IFP status under the three strikes rule[.]”). The objective 

of the PLRA is to further “the congressional goal of reducing frivolous prisoner litigation 

in federal court.” Tierney v. Kupers, 128 F.3d 1310, 1312 (9th Cir. 1997). “[S]ection 

1915(g)’s cap on prior dismissed claims applies to claims dismissed both before and after 

the statute’s effective date.” Id. at 1311.

“Strikes are prior cases or appeals, brought while the plaintiff was a prisoner, which 

were dismissed on the ground that they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim,” 

Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1116 n.1 (internal quotations omitted), “even if the district court 

styles such dismissal as a denial of the prisoner’s application to file the action without 

prepayment of the full filing fee.” O’Neal v. Price, 531 F.3d 1146, 1153 (9th Cir. 2008). 

Once a prisoner has accumulated three strikes, he is prohibited by Section 1915(g) from 

Case 3:18-cv-00576-BAS-BGS Document 4 Filed 03/27/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
18cv576

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

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

danger of serious physical injury.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Cervantes, 493 F.3d at 1051–

52 (noting §1915(g)’s exception for IFP complaints which “make[] a plausible allegation 

that the prisoner faced ‘imminent danger of serious physical injury’ at the time of filing.”).

DISCUSSION

As an initial matter, the Court takes judicial notice that Plaintiff, while incarcerated, 

has brought at least three prior civil actions which have been dismissed on the grounds that

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

See 28 U.S.C. §1915(g). A court “‘may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both 

within and without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation 

to matters at issue.’” Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1225 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting 

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

ex rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 

1992). The actions of which the Court takes judicial notice for the purposes of this order 

are: 

1) White v. Ulstad, No. 2:13-cv-02459-UA-VBK, ECF No. 6 (C.D. Cal. May 20, 

2013) (order dismissing action as frivolous, malicious and fails to state a claim 

upon which relief may be granted) (strike one);

2) White v. Soto, No. 2:13-cv-02751-UA-VBK, ECF No. 4 (C.D. Cal. June 18, 

2013) (order dismissing action as frivolous, malicious and fails to state a claim 

upon which relief may be granted) (strike two);

3) White v. City and County of San Francisco, No. 3:15-cv-03265-JD, ECF Nos. 

9, 10 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2015) (order dismissing action for failing to state a 

claim) (strike three).

Based on the orders of dismissal in these cases, the Court concludes that Plaintiff 

has, while incarcerated, accumulated at least the three “strikes” permitted pursuant to 

Section 1915(g). Therefore, Plaintiff must show that he faces imminent physical danger in 

order to receive IFP status.

Case 3:18-cv-00576-BAS-BGS Document 4 Filed 03/27/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
18cv576

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

The Court has carefully reviewed Plaintiff’s Complaint and has ascertained that it 

does not contain “plausible allegations” which suggest he “faced ‘imminent danger of 

serious physical injury’ at the time of filing.” Cervantes, 493 F.3d at 1055 (quoting 28 

U.S.C. §1915(g)). Therefore, he is not entitled to the privilege of proceeding IFP in this 

action. See Cervantes, 493 F.3d at 1055; Rodriguez, 169 F.3d at 1180 (finding that 28 

U.S.C. §1915(g) “does not prevent all prisoners from accessing the courts; it only precludes 

prisoners with a history of abusing the legal system from continuing to abuse it while 

enjoying IFP status”); see also Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1231 (9th Cir. 1984) 

(“[C]ourt permission to proceed IFP is itself a matter of privilege and not right.”). 

Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP and further dismisses the 

action without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee.

CONCLUSION & ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby: 

(1) DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 2) as barred by 28 

U.S.C. §1915(g).

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

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

(3) DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 3); and

(4) DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to close the case file in light of the foregoing 

dismissal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 27, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-00576-BAS-BGS Document 4 Filed 03/27/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4