Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00339/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00339-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DAVID B. TURNER, Jr., 

Booking #15780644, 

v. 

Plaintiff, 

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al. 

Defendants. 

Case No.: 3: 16-cv-0339 WQH (BGS) 

ORDER: 

(1) DENYING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

AS BARRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) 

[ECF Doc. No.2] 

AND 

(2) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR 

FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEE 

REQUIRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) 

22 Plaintiff, David B. Turner, Jr., currently incarcerated at George Bailey Detention 

23 Facility ("GBDF"), in San Diego, California, has filed a civil rights Complaint 

24 ("Compl.") pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See ECF Doc. No.1. 

25 Plaintiff claims the County of San Diego, and several unidentified San Diego 

26 County Sheriffs Department deputies, violated his right to privacy by conducting an "x27 ray" and visual cavity search of his person at the San Diego Central Jail ("SDCJ") on 

28 1 

3:16·cy·0339 WQH (BOS) 

Case 3:16-cv-00339-WQH-BGS Document 4 Filed 03/11/16 Page 1 of 6
1 September 27, 2015, after he was arrested and booked for misdemeanor offenses. See 

2 Compl. at 3, 5. Plaintiff also claims he was hand-cuffed too tightly, and was "subjected to 

3 overcrowded cellliving" while in custody. Id. at 4. Plaintiff further contends that after he 

4 was released on October 1, 2015, he went to City Police Department to retrieve personal 

5 property seized at the time of his arrest, but several personal items were not returned and 

6 the City "claims they don't know what happened to [his] things." Id. at 6. Plaintiff seeks 

7 injunctive relief preventing the County and SDCJ officials "from disregarding prisoners' 

8 rights," as well as general and punitive damages for his pain and suffering. Id. at 9. 1 

9 Plaintiff has not prepaid the full civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); 

10 instead, he has filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis ("IFP") (ECF Doc. No.2). 

11 I. Motion to Proceed IFP 

12 "All persons, not just prisoners, may seek IFP status." Moore v. Maricopa County 

13 Sheriff's Office, 657 F.3d 890,892 (9th Cir. 2011). Prisoners like Plaintiff, however, 

14 "face an additional hurdle." Id. In addition to requiring prisoners to "pay the full amount 

15 of a filing fee," in "monthly installments" or "increments" as provided by 28 U.S.C. 

16 § 1915(a)(3)(b), Bruce v. Samuels, _ U.S. _, 136 S. Ct. 627,629 (2016); Williams v. 

17 Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2015), the Prison Litigation Reform Act 

18 

19 

20 

21 

("PLRA") amended section 1915 to preclude the privilege to proceed IFP: 

. . . if [ a] 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 

22 The Court takes judicial notice that Plaintiff has several other civil rights actions 

currently pending before this Court, most of which also involve claims of excessive force, 

23 the denial of medical care, and unconstitutional conditions of confinement against the City 

24 and County of San Diego and County Sheriffs Department officials, but arising during 

previous periods of arrest, detention, or incarceration in 2013. See, e.g., Turner v. San 

25 Diego CentraiJail, etal., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3: 13-cv-1133-WQH-BGS (filed on May 

26 10,2013); Turner v. City of San Diego Police Dept., et al., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:13-

cv-2124-DMS-JMA (filed Sept. 10,2013); and Turner v. County of San Diego, et ai., S. 

27 D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:14-cv-2003-JAH-JLB (filed Aug. 25, 2014). 

28 2 

3:16-cv-0339 WQH (EGS) 

Case 3:16-cv-00339-WQH-BGS Document 4 Filed 03/11/16 Page 2 of 6
1 

2 

3 

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. 

4 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). "This subdivision is commonly known as the 'three strikes' 

5 provision." Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1116 n.l (9th Cir. 2005) (hereafter 

6 "Andrews"). 

7 "Pursuant to § 1915(g), a prisoner with three strikes or more cannot proceed IFP." 

8 Id.; see also Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2007) (hereafter 

9 "Cervantes") (under the PLRA, "[p ]risoners who have repeatedly brought unsuccessful 

10 

11 

suits may entirely be barred from IFP status under the three strikes rule[.]"). The 

objective ofthe PLRA is to further "the congressional goal of reducing frivolous prisoner 

12 litigation in federal court." Tierney v. Kupers, 128 F.3d 1310, 1312 (9th Cir. 1997). 

13 "[S]ection 1915(g)'s cap on prior dismissed claims applies to claims dismissed both 

14 before and after the statute's effective date." Id. at 1311. 

15 "Strikes are prior cases or appeals, brought while the plaintiff was a prisoner, 

16 which were dismissed on the ground that they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state 

17 a claim," Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1116 n.l (internal quotations omitted), "even if the 

18 district court styles such dismissal as a denial of the prisoner's application to file the 

19 action without prepayment of the full filing fee." 0 'Neal v. Price, 531 F.3d 1146, 1153 

20 (9th Cir. 2008). Once a prisoner has accumulated three strikes, he is prohibited by section 

1915(g) from pursuing any other IFP action in federal court unless he alleges he is facing 

22 "imminent danger of serious physical injury." See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Cervantes, 493 

F.3d at 1051-52 (noting § 1915(g)'s exception for IFP complaints which "make[] a 

21 

23 

24 plausible allegation that the prisoner faced 'imminent danger of serious physical injury' 

25 at the time of filing."). 

26 / / / 

27 / / / 

28 3 

3: 16·cv·0339 WQH (BGS) 

Case 3:16-cv-00339-WQH-BGS Document 4 Filed 03/11/16 Page 3 of 6
1 II. Application to Plaintiff 

2 As an initial matter, the Court has carefully reviewed Plaintiffs Complaint and has 

3 ascertained that it does not contain "plausible allegations" which suggest he "faced 

4 'imminent danger of serious physical injury' at the time of filing." Cervantes, 493 FJd at 

5 1055 (quoting 28 U.S.c. § 1915(g». Instead, Plaintiff claims that on September 27,2015, 

6 his right to privacy was violated during a SDCJ's booking procedure, he was cuffed too 

7 tightly, and later placed in an "overcrowded cell" with two other inmates. See Compl. at 

8 1-5. Plaintiff also claims the City of San Diego either lost or failed to return personal 

9 property which was presumably confiscated when he was arrested on September 27, 

10 2015.Id. at 6. Nothing in his Complaint suggests danger of serious physical injury of any 

11 kind which may be plausibly construed as "imminent" or "ongoing" when he filed his 

12 Complaint in this case, from GBDF, in February 2016. Cervantes, 493 F.3d at 1055, 

13 1056-57. 

14 A court "'may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without 

15 the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at 

16 issue.'" Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1225 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Bennett v. 

17 Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d 801,803 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002»; see also United States ex reI. 

18 Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244,248 (9th Cir. 1992). 

19 Thus, this Court takes judicial notice that Plaintiff, David B. Turner, Jr., currently 

20 identified as San Diego County Sheriffs Department Booking No. 15780644,2 while 

21 incarcerated, has brought more than three prior civil actions and appeals which were 

22 dismissed on the grounds that they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim 

23 upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

24 

25 

26 2 A review of David B. Turner Jr.' s previous cases in PACER shows he has also been 

previously identified as CDCR Inmate # G-30643, and as San Diego County Inmate 

27 Booking #13719099. 

28 4 

3:16-cv-0339 WQH (BGS) 

Case 3:16-cv-00339-WQH-BGS Document 4 Filed 03/11/16 Page 4 of 6
1 They are: 

2 1) Turner v. Metropolitan Transit System, et aI., Civil Case No.3 :09-cv-00770-

3 L-POR (S.D. Cal. Nov. 11,2009) (Order denying amended motion to proceed IFP and 

4 dismissing amended complaint for failing to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

5 § 1915(e)(2)(B)and § 1915A(b»(ECFDoc.No.6)(strikeone); 

6 2) Turner v. Corporal Saunder (7294), et al., Civil Case No. 3: 13-cv-01368-

7 MMA-DHB (S.D. Cal. June 18,2013) (Order dismissing action as frivolous pursuant to 

8 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) and denying motion to proceed IFP as moot) (ECF Doc. No.3) 

9 (strike two); 

10 3) Turnerv. County o/San Diego, et aI., Civil Case No_ 3: 13-cv-2288-LAB11 RBB (S.D. Cal. July 11,2014) (Order sua sponte dismissing First Amended Complaint 

12 for failing to state a claim and as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S_C. § 1915(e)(2) & 

13 § 1915A(b) (ECF Doc. No.7); (Nov. 11,2014, 9th Circuit USCA, No. 14-56249) (Order 

14 denying appellant's motion to proceed IFP "because we find that there is no non15 frivolous issue presented in this appeal") (ECF Doc_ No. 13) (strike three); and 

16 4) Turner v. San Diego County, et aI., Civil Case No. 3: 13-cv-02729-JLS-PCL 

17 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 19,2014) (Order granting IFP and sua sponte dismissing First Amended 

18 Complaint for failing to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 

19 § 1915A(b)(I» (ECF Doc. No. 13); (March 20, 2015 Order dismissing case in its entirety 

20 for failing to state a claim pursuant to pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 

21 § 1915A(b)(I) and for failing to prosecute pursuant to FED. R. ClY. P. 41(b) in 

22 compliance with Court Order requiring amendment) (ECF Doc. No. 14); (July 30, 2015 

23 9th Circuit USCA, No. 15-55544) (Order denying appellant's motion to proceed IFP 

24 "because we find that the appeal is frivolous") (ECF Doc. No. 20) (strike four)_ 

25 Accordingly, because Plaintiff has, while incarcerated, accumulated at least four 

26 "strikes" as defined by § 1915(g), and he fails to make a "plausible allegation" that he 

27 faced imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed his Complaint, he is 

28 5 

3:16-cv-0339 WQH (BGS) 

Case 3:16-cv-00339-WQH-BGS Document 4 Filed 03/11/16 Page 5 of 6
1 not entitled to the privilege of proceeding IFP in this action. See Cervantes, 493 F.3d at 

2 1055; Rodriguez, 169 F.3d at 1180 (finding that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) "does not prevent 

3 all prisoners from accessing the courts; it only precludes prisoners with a history of 

4 abusing the legal system from continuing to abuse it while enjoying IFP status"); see also 

5 Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1231 (9th Cir. 1984) ("[C]ourt permission to proceed 

6 IFP is itself a matter of privilege and not right."). 

7 III. Conclusion and Order 

8 For the reasons set forth above, the Court: 

9 (1) DENIES Plaintiffs Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF Doc. No.2) as barred by 

10 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); 

11 (2) DISMISSES this civil action sua sponte without prejudice for failing to 

12 prepay the $400 civil and administrative filing fees required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); and 

13 (3) CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal from this Order would be frivolous and 

14 therefore, not taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). See Coppedge v. 

15 United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962); Gardner v. Pogue, 558 F.2d 548,550 (9th Cir. 

16 1977) (indigent appellant is permitted to proceed IFP on appeal only if appeal would not 

17 be frivolous). 

18 The Clerk shall close the file. 

19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

20 

21 Dated: 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

HON. WILLIAM Q. S 

United States District Judge 

6 

3: J6-cv-0339 WQH (8GS) 

Case 3:16-cv-00339-WQH-BGS Document 4 Filed 03/11/16 Page 6 of 6