Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02845/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02845-2/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 

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

LEON E. MORRIS 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

KEVIN DALY, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:12-cv-02845 LKK JFM (PC) 

ORDER 

 The magistrate judge previously found, and the court affirmed, that plaintiff could not 

proceed in forma pauperis herein because he had three “strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and 

appeared not to be under imminent danger of serious physical injury. (ECF Nos. 6, 10.) Both the 

magistrate judge and the court reached this conclusions largely on the basis of Morris v. 

Woodford, No. 3:07-cv-4198, 2008 WL 906560, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119920 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 

2, 2008). In Woodford, Judge Jenkins determined that all three of the following were “strikes” 

under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, and accordingly, denied plaintiff leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis: 

1. Morris v. Duncan, No. C 02-0928 MJJ (PR) (N.D. Cal. May 3, 2002), which was 

dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. 

Case 2:12-cv-02845-JAM-AC Document 12 Filed 07/05/13 Page 1 of 3
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. Morris v. Silvers, No. C 98-1381 BTM (LAB) (S.D. Cal. Sep. 15, 1998), which 

was dismissed on Younger abstention and ripeness grounds. 

3. Morris v. Lushia, No. C 00-55330 (9th Cir. Mar. 27, 2000), which was dismissed 

because the order challenged was not final or appealable. 

2008 WL 906560 at *1-2, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119920 at *4-6. 

 Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, a prisoner may not proceed in forma 

pauperis “if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions . . . brought an action or appeal . . . 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). 

 While there is no question that the first dismissal above is a “strike,” subsequent Ninth 

Circuit opinions cast doubt on whether the latter two should be so considered. 

 In 2011, the Ninth Circuit held that dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not a 

strike. See Moore v. Maricopa Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, 657 F.3d 890, 894 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[W]e 

conclude that Congress intended for the three-strikes rule to count 12(b)(6) dismissals but not 

12(b)(1) dismissals”). As the doctrines of abstention and ripeness both implicate federal courts’ 

subject matter jurisdiction to hear cases, it appears that Morris v. Silvers should not count as a 

“strike.” 

 In 2011, the Ninth Circuit also held that dismissal of an appeal “must be final before it 

counts as a ‘strike’ for § 1915(g) purposes.” Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1099 (9th Cir. 

2011). A dismissal for bringing a premature appeal is not final, and therefore, Morris v. Lushia 

should also not count as a “strike.” 

 In his request for reconsideration (ECF No. 11), plaintiff correctly points out that the 

Northern District of California apparently no longer considers him to have “struck out,” as he has 

Case 2:12-cv-02845-JAM-AC Document 12 Filed 07/05/13 Page 2 of 3
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 

been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in the following cases: Morris v. Evans, No. 

4:10-4010 YGR (N.D. Cal.) and Morris v. Peterson, No. 3:12-2480 WHO (N.D. Cal.). 

 In sum, having reevaluated Morris v. Woodford, supra, in light of subsequent Ninth 

Circuit precedent, the court determines that it erred in finding that plaintiff had “struck out” under 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

 Accordingly, the court hereby orders as follows: 

[1] Previous orders in this matter (ECF Nos. 6, 10) denying plaintiff leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis are REVERSED. 

[2] The magistrate judge is REQUESTED to reconsider plaintiff’s earlier motion to 

proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) in light of the foregoing. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: July 2, 2013. 

Case 2:12-cv-02845-JAM-AC Document 12 Filed 07/05/13 Page 3 of 3