Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00332/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00332-0/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 JDDL

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

John Calvin Neuendorf, II, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

State of Arizona, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-332-PHX-RCB (DKD)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On February 18, 2011, Plaintiff John Calvin Neuendorf, II, who is confined in the

Maricopa County Fourth Avenue Jail, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1). Plaintiff has not paid the $350.00 civil action filing fee, but has filed

an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 3) and an Inmate Account Statement

(Doc. 4). On March 10, 2011, Plaintiff filed a supplement (Doc. 5) to his Complaint.

Because it appears that Plaintiff has at least “three strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g),

the Court will permit Plaintiff an opportunity to show cause why the dismissals of his prior

lawsuits should not prevent him from proceeding in forma pauperis in this action.

I. “Three Strikes Provision” of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

A prisoner may not bring a civil action or appeal a civil judgment in forma pauperis

if:

the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while

Case 2:11-cv-00332-RCB--DKD Document 6 Filed 04/08/11 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

JDDL - 2 -

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 constitutionality of this provision has been upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeals. Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1123 (9th Cir. 2005); Rodriguez v. Cook, 169

F.3d 1176, 1181 (9th Cir. 1999). “[Section] 1915(g) should be used to deny a prisoner’s IFP

status only when, after careful evaluation of the order dismissing an 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.” Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1121. “In some

instances, the district court docket records may be sufficient to show that a prior dismissal

satisfies at least one of the criteria under § 1915(g) and therefore counts as a strike.” Id. at

1120.

It appears that Plaintiff has filed at least five prior lawsuits while he has been a

prisoner and that at least three of Plaintiff’s prior lawsuits qualify as “strikes” under

§ 1915(g):

(1) Neuendorf v. Steinhillber, 10-CV-724-PHX-RCB (DKD) (D.

Ariz. Judgment of dismissal filed June 21, 2010);

(2) Neuendorf v. John C. Lincoln Medical, 10-CV-752-PHX-RCB

(DKD) (D. Ariz. Order of dismissal filed August 3, 2010); and

(3) Neuendorf v. State of Arizona, 10-CV-2238-PHX-RCB (DKD)

(D. Ariz. Order of dismissal filed January 20, 2011).

II. Imminent Danger

A plaintiff who has three or more strikes may not bring a civil action without complete

prepayment of the $350.00 filing fee unless he is in imminent danger of serious physical

injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). To meet the “imminent danger” requirement, the “threat or

prison condition [must be] real and proximate,” Ciarpaglini v. Saini, 352 F.3d 328, 330 (7th

Cir. 2003) (quoting Lewis v. Sullivan, 279 F.3d 526, 531 (7th Cir. 2002)), and the allegations

must be “specific or credible.” Kinnell v. Graves, 265 F.3d 1125, 1128 (10th Cir. 2001). 

Case 2:11-cv-00332-RCB--DKD Document 6 Filed 04/08/11 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

JDDL - 3 -

Plaintiff does not allege that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury and

his allegations do not support such a finding.

III. Order to Show Cause

 “[O]nce a prisoner has been placed on notice of the potential disqualification under

§ 1915(g) . . . , the prisoner bears the ultimate burden of persuading the court that § 1915(g)

does not preclude IFP status.” Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1120. This Order serves as notice of

Plaintiff’s potential disqualification under § 1915(g). The Court will permit Plaintiff an

opportunity to show cause in writing why the dismissals of his prior lawsuits do not preclude

him in forma pauperis status under § 1915(g). Plaintiff’s response to this Order shall be

limited to this issue and must be filed within 30 days of the date this Order is filed.

Alternatively, Plaintiff may submit the $350.00 filing fee within 30 days of the date this

Order is filed. 

If Plaintiff fails to timely respond to this Order or fails to persuade the Court that

§ 1915(g) does not preclude him in forma pauperis status, Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed

will be denied, and the Complaint and this action will be dismissed without prejudice

pursuant to § 1915(g). If Plaintiff wishes to reassert these claims in the future, he must

prepay the entire $350.00 filing fee when he files her action.

IV. Warnings

A. Address Changes

Plaintiff must file and serve a notice of a change of address in accordance with Rule

83.3(d) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff must not include a motion for other

relief with a notice of change of address. Failure to comply may result in dismissal of this

action.

B. Copies

Plaintiff must submit an additional copy of every filing for use by the Court. See

LRCiv 5.4. Failure to comply may result in the filing being stricken without further notice

to Plaintiff.

. . .

Case 2:11-cv-00332-RCB--DKD Document 6 Filed 04/08/11 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

JDDL - 4 -

C. Possible Dismissal

If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with every provision of this Order, including these

warnings, the Court may dismiss this action without further notice. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (a district court may dismiss an action for failure to

comply with any order of the Court).

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing, within 30 days of the

date this Order is filed, why the dismissals of his prior lawsuits do not preclude him in forma

pauperis status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff’s written response shall be limited

to this issue only.

(2) If Plaintiff fails to either pay the $350.00 filing fee or file a response to this

Order to Show Cause within 30 days of the date this Order is filed, the Clerk of Court must

enter a judgment of dismissal of this action without further notice to Plaintiff and without

prejudice to Plaintiff filing a complaint in a new case accompanied by prepayment of the full

$350.00 filing fee.

DATED this 8th day of April, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-00332-RCB--DKD Document 6 Filed 04/08/11 Page 4 of 4