Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-02178/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-02178-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

GARY DALE BARGER, a/k/a SONNY 

BARGER, II, a/k/a GARY FRANCIS 

FISHER (CDCR # F85263),

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-02178-EMC 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Docket Nos. 4, 10, 13

On June 7, 2019, the Court ordered Plaintiff, Gary Dale Barger, a/k/a Sonny Barger, II, 

a/k/a Gary Francis Fischer, to show cause by July 5, 2019, why this action should not be dismissed 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which provides that 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). The order identified five prior dismissals that appeared to count 

under § 1915(g), stated that Plaintiff did not appear to be under imminent danger of serious 

physical injury when he filed the complaint, and ordered Plaintiff to show cause why pauper status 

should not be denied and the action should not be dismissed. The order further stated that Plaintiff

also could avoid dismissal by paying the filing fee by the deadline. 

Plaintiff filed a response on June 27, 2019. Docket No. 13. In his response, Plaintiff 

claimed that he was beaten on November 27, 2013 in a cell fight at New Folsom State Prison –

apparently trying to show that he was in imminent danger. Plaintiff’s response fails to plausibly 

Case 3:19-cv-02178-EMC Document 15 Filed 08/09/19 Page 1 of 2
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

allege that he is “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” so that he may avoid a 

dismissal under § 1915(g). He does not explain how the alleged beating in 2013 put him in 

imminent danger when he filed this action more than five years later and while housed at a 

different prison. See generally Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 & n.5 (9th Cir. 2007) 

(whether imminent danger exists is to be determined at the time of filing the complaint; the 

conditions that existed at some earlier or later time are not relevant). 

Each of the five earlier dismissals identified in the order to show cause counts as a 

dismissal for § 1915(g) purposes. Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee, did not show that any of the 

prior dismissals could not be counted under § 1915(g), does not appear to have been under 

imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed this action, and did not otherwise 

show cause why this action could not be dismissed. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's in forma 

pauperis application is DENIED. Docket No. 10. This action is DISMISSED for failure to pay 

the filing fee. The dismissal is without prejudice to Plaintiff asserting his claims in a new 

complaint for which he pays the full filing fee at the time he files that action. 

In light of the dismissal of this action, Plaintiff’s “motion to be heard” is DISMISSED as 

moot. Docket No. 4.

The Clerk shall close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 9, 2019

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-02178-EMC Document 15 Filed 08/09/19 Page 2 of 2