Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00483/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00483-0/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

K:\COMMON\CHMB_MIL\__SIGNED ORDERS\4 9 2008\08cv0483_denyIFP-1915(g)_4 9 2008.wpd -1- 08cv0483

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARDY D. CHADWICK,

CDCR #T-13047,

Civil No. 08-0483 JM (PCL)

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

AS BARRED BY 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) 

[Doc. No. 3] 

AND 

DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

FOR FAILING TO PREPAY

CIVIL FILING FEE REQUIRED

BY 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a)

vs.

SAN DIEGO POLICE DEP’T,

Defendant.

I.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Ardy D. Chadwick (“Plaintiff”), a prisoner currently incarcerated at the

California’s Men Colony in San Luis Obispo, California, and proceeding pro se, filed this

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on March 12, 2008. In his Complaint,

Plaintiff alleges an unidentified San Diego police officer unlawfully arrested and beat him

during a drug-related incident on an unspecified date at 15th and Island Streets in San

Diego. (See Compl. at 1, 4.) Plaintiff seeks $3.15 million in damages. (Id. at 3.) 

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JM-PCL Document 5 Filed 04/09/08 Page 1 of 6
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

K:\COMMON\CHMB_MIL\__SIGNED ORDERS\4 9 2008\08cv0483_denyIFP-1915(g)_4 9 2008.wpd -2- 08cv0483

At the time of filing, Plaintiff did not prepay the $350 filing fee mandated by 28

U.S.C. § 1914(a) to commence a civil action; nor did he file a Motion to Proceed In

Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Therefore, on March 20, 2008,

the Court dismissed the case, but granted Plaintiff an opportunity to proceed by either

paying the full filing fee or filing a Motion to Proceed IFP within 45 days [Doc. No. 2].

In response, on March 28, 2008, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Proceed IFP [Doc. No. 3], to

which the Court now turns.

II.

MOTION TO PROCEED IFP

Section 1915 of Title 28 of the United States Code allows certain litigants to pursue

civil litigation IFP, that is, without the full prepayment of fees or costs. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a)(2). However, the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) amended section

1915 to preclude the privilege to proceed IFP:

. . . 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 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). 

“‘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 fail[ed] to

state a claim.” Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1116 n.1. Thus, once a prisoner has accumulated

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JM-PCL Document 5 Filed 04/09/08 Page 2 of 6
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

 The Ninth Circuit has held that section 1915(g) does not violate a prisoner’s right to

access to the courts, due process or equal protection; nor does it violate separation of powers

principles or operate as an ex post facto law. Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1179-82 (9th

Cir. 1999); see also Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1123 (noting constitutionality of § 1915(g), but

recognizing that “serious constitutional concerns would arise if § 1915(g) were applied to

preclude those prisoners who had filed actions who were not ‘frivolous, malicious, or fail[ing]

to state a claim’ from proceeding IFP.”). 

K:\COMMON\CHMB_MIL\__SIGNED ORDERS\4 9 2008\08cv0483_denyIFP-1915(g)_4 9 2008.wpd -3- 08cv0483

three strikes, he is prohibited by section 1915(g) from pursuing any other action IFP in

federal court unless he is under “imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 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.”).1

While the PLRA does not require a prisoner to declare that § 1915(g) does not bar

his request to proceed IFP, Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1119, “[i]n 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. When

applying 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), however, the court must “conduct a careful evaluation of

the order dismissing an action, and other relevant information,” before determining that

the action “was dismissed because it was frivolous, malicious or failed to state a claim,”

since “not all unsuccessful cases qualify as a strike under § 1915(g).” Id. at 1121.

The Ninth Circuit has held that “the phrase ‘fails to state a claim on which relief

may be granted,’ as used elsewhere in § 1915, ‘parallels the language of Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).’” Id. (quoting Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th

Cir. 1998)). Andrews further holds that a case is “frivolous” for purposes of § 1915(g)

“if it is of little weight or importance” or “ha[s] no basis in law or fact.” 398 F.3d at

1121 (citations omitted); see also Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (“[A]

complaint, containing as it does both factual allegations and legal conclusions, is

frivolous [under 28 U.S.C. § 1915] where it lacks an arguable basis in either law or in fact

.... [The] term ‘frivolous,’ when applied to a complaint, embraces not only the inarguable

legal conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation.”). “A case is malicious if it was

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JM-PCL Document 5 Filed 04/09/08 Page 3 of 6
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

 Indeed, Plaintiff has been denied leave to proceed IFP as a result of his “three strikes”

status pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) in at least five cases filed within the Southern District of

California over the last two years alone. See e.g., Chadwick v. San Diego Police Dept., S.D.

Cal. Civil Case No. 06-1980 L (WMc) (Nov. 20, 2006 Order Denying Motion to Proceed IFP

as barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) [Doc. No. 3]); Chadwick v. Reichert, S.D. Cal. Civil Case No.

06-2075 JM (AJB) (Nov. 28, 2006 Order Denying Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g) [Doc. No. 3]); Chadwick v. San Diego Police Dep’t, S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 06-2740

IEG (JMA) (Jan. 3, 2007 Order Denying Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)

[Doc. No. 9]); Chadwick v. San Diego Police Dep’t, S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 07-2005 DMS

(AJB) (Oct. 24, 2007 Order Denying Motion to Proceed IFP as barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)

[Doc. No. 3]); and Chadwick v. San Diego Police Dep’t, S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 08-0423 L

(RBB) (March 18, 2008 Order Denying Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)

[Doc. No. 5]).

K:\COMMON\CHMB_MIL\__SIGNED ORDERS\4 9 2008\08cv0483_denyIFP-1915(g)_4 9 2008.wpd -4- 08cv0483

filed with the intention or desire to harm another.” Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1121 (quotation

and citation omitted).

III.

APPLICATION OF 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)

The Court notes as an initial matter that it has carefully reviewed Plaintiff’s

Complaint and has ascertained that it makes no “plausible allegation” to suggest Plaintiff

“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, Plaintiff may be barred from

proceeding IFP in this action if he has on three prior occasions had civil actions or

appeals dismissed as frivolous, malicious or for failing to state a claim. 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).

Here, the Court takes judicial notice that Plaintiff has had more than three prior prisoner

civil actions dismissed in the Southern District of California on the grounds that they

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A.2

 See Chadwick v. San Diego Police

Dep’t, S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 01-1343 W (JAH) (Oct. 3, 2001 Order Dismissing action

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JM-PCL Document 5 Filed 04/09/08 Page 4 of 6
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

K:\COMMON\CHMB_MIL\__SIGNED ORDERS\4 9 2008\08cv0483_denyIFP-1915(g)_4 9 2008.wpd -5- 08cv0483

without prejudice for failing to pay filing fees and/or Move to Proceed IFP and sua sponte

Dismissing Complaint for failing to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) [Doc.

No. 2]) (strike one); Chadwick v. State of California, S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 01-1512

JM (JAH) (Nov. 13, 2001 Order Dismissing action without prejudice for failing to pay

filing fees and/or Move to Proceed IFP and sua sponte Dismissing Complaint as frivolous

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) [Doc. No. 2]) (strike two); Chadwick v. California

Dep’t of Corrections, S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 04-2327 IEG (POR) (Feb. 14, 2005 Order

Granting IFP and sua sponte Dismissing Complaint for failing to state a claim pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii) & 1915A(b) [Doc. No. 3]) (strike three), and Chadwick

v. Reichert, S. D. Cal. Civil Case No. 06-2075 JM (AJB) (Nov. 28, 2006 Order denying

IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and sua sponte dismissing complaint for failing to

state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) [Doc. No. 3] (strike four).

Accordingly, because Plaintiff has, while incarcerated, accumulated three “strikes”

pursuant to § 1915(g), and he fails to make a “plausible allegation” that he is under

imminent danger of serious physical injury, 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.”). 

IV.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to

Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) [Doc. No. 3] and DISMISSES the case

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JM-PCL Document 5 Filed 04/09/08 Page 5 of 6
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

K:\COMMON\CHMB_MIL\__SIGNED ORDERS\4 9 2008\08cv0483_denyIFP-1915(g)_4 9 2008.wpd -6- 08cv0483

without prejudice for failure to prepay the full $350 civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C.

§ 1914(a).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 9, 2008

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JM-PCL Document 5 Filed 04/09/08 Page 6 of 6