Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00721/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00721-0/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 

3:19-cv-00721-MMA-LL 

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 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ROBERT HATCHER, 

Booking #19705701, 

Plaintiff,

vs. 

LINDSEY L. BALL, et al., 

Defendants.

 Case No.: 3:19-cv-00721-MMA-LL 

ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL 

ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PAY 

FILING FEES REQUIRED 

BY 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) AND AS 

FRIVOLOUS PURSUANT 

TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) 

 Plaintiff, Robert Hatcher, while in custody at the San Diego Central Jail (“SDCJ”), 

filed a civil rights Complaint (“Compl.”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 18, 2019, 

attached to which are dozens of pages of miscellaneous medical record exhibits. See

Compl., Doc. No. 1. Hatcher’s pleading is confusing and disjointed, but it appears he seeks 

to sue several doctors and nurses at SDCJ and at Tri City Medical Center in Oceanside, 

California, where his exhibits show he was temporarily examined and treated for a host of 

medical conditions and complaints. Id. at 1-5, 17-18. Hatcher also includes as defendants 

the former First Lady of the United States and private individuals he labels as his “stalkers,” 

and he claims he is being discriminating against, disparaged, and subject to “arbitrary 

detention” because he is Native American. Id. at 1, 4, 18-20. 

Case 3:19-cv-00721-MMA-LL Document 4 Filed 05/22/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 7
2 

3:19-cv-00721-MMA-LL 

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

Hatcher has not prepaid the $400 filing fee required to commence civil action 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), nor has he filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 

(“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

I. Failure to Pay Filing Fee or Request IFP Status

 All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in any district court of the 

United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 

$400. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a).1

 An action may proceed despite a party’s failure to pay this 

filing fee only if the party is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007); Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 

F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). 

 Hatcher has not prepaid the $400 in filing and administrative fees required to 

commence a civil action, and he has not filed a Motion to Proceed IFP in compliance with 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Therefore, his civil action cannot proceed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); 

Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1051. And while the Court would ordinarily grant him leave to file 

an IFP Motion pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), it finds, for the reasons set out below, that 

doing so would be futile since Hatcher is no longer entitled to that privilege, he fails to 

include plausible allegations of imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he 

filed his Complaint, and his suit is legally frivolous. 

II. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)’s “Three-Strikes” Bar 

 “All persons, not just prisoners, may seek IFP status.” Moore v. Maricopa County 

Sheriff’s Office, 657 F.3d 890, 892 (9th Cir. 2011). “Prisoners,” however, “face an 

additional hurdle.” Id. In addition to requiring prisoners to “pay the full amount of a filing 

fee” in installments as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3)(b), the Prison Litigation Reform 

                                               

1

 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional administrative fee of $50. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 

(eff. June 1, 2016). The additional $50 administrative fee does not apply to persons granted leave to 

proceed IFP. Id.

Case 3:19-cv-00721-MMA-LL Document 4 Filed 05/22/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 7
3 

3:19-cv-00721-MMA-LL 

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

Act (“PLRA”) amended section 1915 to preclude the privilege to proceed IFP in cases 

where 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 failed to state a claim,” 

Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1116 n.1 (internal quotations omitted), “even if the district court 

styles such dismissal as a denial of the prisoner’s application to file the action without 

prepayment of the full filing fee.” O’Neal v. Price, 531 F.3d 1146, 1153 (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 can show he is facing “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 plausible allegation 

that the prisoner faced ‘imminent danger of serious physical injury’ at the time of filing.”). 

III. Discussion 

 As an initial matter, the Court has reviewed Hatcher’s pleading and finds it contains 

no “plausible allegations” to suggest he “faced ‘imminent danger of serious physical 

Case 3:19-cv-00721-MMA-LL Document 4 Filed 05/22/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 7
4 

3:19-cv-00721-MMA-LL 

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

injury’ at the time of filing.” Cervantes, 493 F.3d at 1055 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)). 

Instead, Hatcher’s sparse and disjointed Complaint seeks $1.5 million dollars in general 

and punitive damages and his “release from jail” by relying on conclusory allegations of 

medical discrimination based on his ethnicity and supported only by reams of medical 

records he attaches in no particular order as exhibits.2

 See Compl., Doc. No. 1 at 2-10, 13-

84; Sierra v. Woodford, 2010 WL 1657493 at *3 (E.D. Cal. April 23, 2010) (finding “long, 

narrative, rambling statements regarding a cycle of violence, and vague references to 

motives to harm” insufficient to show Plaintiff faced an “ongoing danger” as required by 

Cervantes). 

If this were not enough, Plaintiff’s claims also appear duplicative of several other 

civil actions he has filed in the Southern District of California over the course of the last 

few months. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) (requiring sua sponte dismissal of prisoner 

complaints, or any portions of them, which are “frivolous, malicious, or fail[ ] to state a 

claim upon which relief may be granted.”); Coleman v. Tollefson, 135 S. Ct. 1759, 1764 

(2015); Byrd v. Phoenix Police Dep’t, 885 F.3d 639, 641 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(b)). “The purpose of § 1915A is to ‘ensure that the targets of frivolous or 

malicious suits need not bear the expense of responding.”’ Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 

903, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal citation omitted); O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 

617 (9th Cir. 1990) (a complaint “is frivolous if it has no arguable basis in fact or law.”). 

A prisoner’s complaint is considered frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) if it 

                                               

2

 Plaintiff’s exhibits are comprised of what appear to be medical discharge records, medication and dietary 

instructions, and referral summaries outlining his transition of care from Tri-City Medical Center in 

Oceanside, California, to San Diego County Sheriff’s Department officials. See Compl., Doc. No. 1 at 9-

84. But while “much liberality is allowed in construing pro se complaints, a pro se litigant cannot simply 

dump a stack of exhibits on the court and expect the court to sift through them to determine if some nugget 

is buried somewhere in that mountain of papers, waiting to be unearthed and refined into a cognizable 

claim.” Samtani v. City of Laredo, 274 F. Supp. 3d 695, at *2 (S.D. Texas 20i17). “The Court will not 

comb through attached exhibits seeking to determine whether a claim possibly could have been stated 

where the pleading itself does not state a claim. In short, [Plaintiff] must state a claim, not merely attach 

exhibits.” Stewart v. Nevada, No. 2:09-CV-01063, 2011 WL 588485, at *2 (D. Nev. Feb. 9, 2011). 

Case 3:19-cv-00721-MMA-LL Document 4 Filed 05/22/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 7
5 

3:19-cv-00721-MMA-LL 

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

“merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims.” Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 

1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (construing former 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)) (citations and 

internal quotations omitted). In Hatcher v. SNR Serina, et al. S. D. Cal. Civil Case No. 

3:19-cv-00661-WQH-LL, for example, which Plaintiff filed just ten days before this case, 

he also alleged that the head nurse at SDCJ, whom he includes as Defendant in this case, 

together with other unidentified SDCJ medical officials, discriminated against him as a 

Native American by refusing to comply with Tri City Medical Center doctors’ orders. See 

id., Compl., Doc. No. 1 at 1-2. In Hatcher v. Aurthur, et al., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:19-

cv-00615-LAB-WVG, Plaintiff also claimed, as he does again here, to have been “stalked” 

while in Carlsbad and Oceanside, California, and to have been the victim of “murder plots” 

across state lines hatched by former First Lady Michelle Obama and private citizens. See 

id., Compl., Doc. No. 1 at 1-2; Amend. Compl., Doc. No. 7 at 1-4. 

Thus, because Plaintiff continues to raise the same claims against several of the same 

parties in 19cv0661 and 19cv0615, this later-filed case is subject to sua sponte dismissal 

as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). See Cato, 70 F.3d at 1105 n.2; 

Nordstrom, 762 F.3d at 907 n.1; see also Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 

684, 688–89 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[I]n assessing whether the second action is duplicative of 

the first, we examine whether the causes of action and relief sought, as well as the parties 

or privies to the action, are the same.”), overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 

553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008). 

And while Defendants typically carry the initial burden to produce evidence 

demonstrating a prisoner is not entitled to proceed IFP, Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1119, “in 

some instances, the district court docket may be sufficient to show that a prior dismissal 

satisfies at least one on the criteria under § 1915(g) and therefore counts as a strike.” Id.

at 1120. That is the case here. 

A court may take judicial notice of its own records, see Molus v. Swan, Civil Case 

No. 3:05-cv-00452-MMA-WMc, 2009 WL 160937, *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2009) (citing 

United States v. Author Services, 804 F.2d 1520, 1523 (9th Cir. 1986)); Gerritsen v. 

Case 3:19-cv-00721-MMA-LL Document 4 Filed 05/22/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 7
6 

3:19-cv-00721-MMA-LL 

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

Warner Bros. Entm’t Inc., 112 F. Supp. 3d 1011, 1034 (C.D. Cal. 2015), and “‘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). 

This Court takes judicial notice of its own records and finds that Plaintiff Robert 

Hatcher, currently identified as San Diego County Sheriff’s Department Inmate Booking 

No. 19705701, while incarcerated, has filed three prior civil actions or appeals that were 

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

which relief may be granted. They are: 

1) Hatcher v. Aurthur, et al., Civil Case No. 3:18-cv-00491-LAB-KSC 

(S.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2018) (Order Denying Motion to Proceed IFP and 

Dismissing Civil Action as Frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)) (Doc. No. 3) (strike one); 

2) Hatcher v. Monahan, Civil Case No. 3:18-cv-00492-CAB-KSC (S.D. 

Cal. April 5, 2018) (Order Granting Motions to Proceed IFP and Dismissing 

Complaint for Failing to State a Claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and 

§ 1915A(b)) (Doc. No. 12); (S. D. Cal., June 14, 2018) (Order Dismissing 

Civil Action for Failing to State a Claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) 

and § 1915A(b) and for Failing to Prosecute in Compliance with Court Order 

requiring Amendment)) (Doc. No. 17) (strike two)3

; and 

3) Hatcher v. Dr. Blake, et al., Civil Case No. 3:18-cv-00561-MMAMDD (S.D. Cal. May 17, 2018) (Order Granting Motion to Proceed IFP and 

Dismissing Complaint for Failing to State a Claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b)) (Doc. No. 8); (S.D. Cal. July 17, 2018) (Order 

Dismissing Civil Action for Failing to State a Claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A and for Failing to Prosecute in Compliance with 

                                               

3 See Harris v. Mangum, 863 F.3d 1133, 1143 (9th Cir. 2017) (“[W]hen (1) a district court dismisses a 

complaint on the ground that it fails to state a claim, and (2) the court grants leave to amend, and (3) the 

plaintiff then fails to file an amended complaint, the dismissal counts as a strike under § 1915(g).”). 

Case 3:19-cv-00721-MMA-LL Document 4 Filed 05/22/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 7
7 

3:19-cv-00721-MMA-LL 

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

Court Order requiring Amendment)) (Doc. No. 10) (strike three).

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

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

danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed his Complaint, 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 explained, the Court: 

 (1) DISMISSES this civil action sua sponte for failure to pay filing fees required 

by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) and as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1); 

 (2) CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal from this Order would also be frivolous and 

therefore, not taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); and 

 (3) DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE: May 22, 2019 _______________________________________ 

 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 

 United States District Judge 

Case 3:19-cv-00721-MMA-LL Document 4 Filed 05/22/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 7