Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00025/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00025-0/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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ZANE HUBBARD, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MICHAEL J. SENG, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-0025 AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983, together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis. However, it appears that 

plaintiff is statutorily precluded from proceeding in forma pauperis, because he has: 

on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated . . ., brought an 

action . . . 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. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

 Some of the prior “strike” cases are: Hubbard v. Flores, 1:13-cv-1056 AWI BAM, ECF 

Nos. 9 & 10 (E.D. Cal., Jun. 30, 2014) (order and judgment dismissing for failure to state a 

cognizable claim; the current case was filed after plaintiff’s time to appeal Flores expired on July 

30, 2014); Hubbard v. Gipson, 1:14-cv-0275 LJO MJS, ECF Nos. 13 & 14 (E.D. Cal., Nov. 18, 

2014) (order and judgment dismissing with prejudice for failure to state a claim; the current case 

Case 2:15-cv-00025-MCE-AC Document 4 Filed 01/22/15 Page 1 of 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 

2

was filed after plaintiff’s time to appeal Gipson expired on December 18, 2014); Hubbard v. Lua, 

1:14-cv-0351 LJO SAB, ECF Nos. 5 & 6 (E.D. Cal., May 6, 2014) (order and judgment 

dismissing with prejudice for failure to state a claim; the current case was filed after plaintiff’s 

time to appeal Lua expired on June 5, 2014). 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED, and 

plaintiff is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis in this action pursuant to the three strikes 

provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); 

 2. Plaintiff is directed to pay the filing fee in full within twenty-eight days of the date 

of this order; and 

 3. Absent timely payment of the filing fee, this case will be dismissed.1

DATED: January 21, 2015 

 

1

 The alleged violations took place in Fresno and Kings Counties, which are part of the Fresno 

Division of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. See Local Rule 

120(d). Accordingly, if plaintiff pays the filing fee, the court will consider transferring this action 

to the Fresno Division of the court pursuant to E.D. Cal. R. 120(f) (a civil action which has not 

been commenced in the proper division of a court may, on the court’s own motion, be transferred 

to the proper division of the court). 

Case 2:15-cv-00025-MCE-AC Document 4 Filed 01/22/15 Page 2 of 2