Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00585/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00585-0/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\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\WQH\08cv0585-denyIFP-1915(g).wpd -1- 08cv0585

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARDY D. CHADWICK,

CDCR #T-13047,

Civil No. 08-0585 WQH (AJB)

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 26, 2008. In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that San

Diego Police Officer Hall and another 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 1-3.) Plaintiff demands a jury trial and seeks $3.15 million in

damages. (Id. at 1, 3.) 

Case 3:08-cv-00585-WQH-AJB Document 4 Filed 05/05/08 Page 1 of 5
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\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\WQH\08cv0585-denyIFP-1915(g).wpd -2- 08cv0585

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 April 3, 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 April 30, 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 three strikes, he is

prohibited by section 1915(g) from pursuing any other action IFP in federal court unless he is

Case 3:08-cv-00585-WQH-AJB Document 4 Filed 05/05/08 Page 2 of 5
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\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\WQH\08cv0585-denyIFP-1915(g).wpd -3- 08cv0585

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

at 1121 (quotation and citation omitted).

/ / /

Case 3:08-cv-00585-WQH-AJB Document 4 Filed 05/05/08 Page 3 of 5
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 six 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]); 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]), and Chadwick v. San Diego Police Dep’t, S. D. Cal. Civil Case No. 08-0483

JM (PCL) (April 9, 2008 Order Denying Motion to Proceed IFP as barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and

Dismissing Case [Doc. No. 5]).

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\WQH\08cv0585-denyIFP-1915(g).wpd -4- 08cv0585

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 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.

Case 3:08-cv-00585-WQH-AJB Document 4 Filed 05/05/08 Page 4 of 5
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\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\WQH\08cv0585-denyIFP-1915(g).wpd -5- 08cv0585

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 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: May 5, 2008

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00585-WQH-AJB Document 4 Filed 05/05/08 Page 5 of 5