Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-04195/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-04195-0/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

Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)

P:pro-se\sj.jf\cr.06\Alford195oscifp

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICKEY LOUIS ALFORD, a.k.a.

Morris Day, 

Plaintiff,

 vs.

PAM HAM, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-4195 JF (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

RE: DISMISSAL PURSUANT

TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)

(Docket No. 2)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner and frequent litigant in this court. He filed a pro se civil

rights action against the following Defendants: Monterey County District Attorneys Pam

Ham and Dean Flipp, Superior Court Judge Marla Anderson, and Judge Russel Scott. 

Plaintiff has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

DISCUSSION

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”), which was enacted on April

26, 1996, provides that a prisoner may not bring a civil action or appeal a civil judgment

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 “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

**Original filed 10/24/06**

Case 5:06-cv-04195-JF Document 5 Filed 10/24/06 Page 1 of 4
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

Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)

P:pro-se\sj.jf\cr.06\Alford195oscifp

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). Because § 1915(g) is a

procedural rule that does not raise retroactivity concerns, cases which were dismissed

before the effective date of § 1915(g), i.e., April 26, 1996, may be counted as qualifying

dismissals or “strikes.” See Tierney v. Kupers, 128 F.3d 1310, 1311-12 (9th Cir. 1997).

For purposes of a dismissal that may be counted under § 1915(g), the phrase “fails

to state a claim on which relief may be granted” parallels the language of Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and apparently means the same thing. Andrews v. King, 398

F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005). A case “is frivolous if it is ‘of little weight or

importance: having no basis in law or fact.’” Id. (citation omitted). “A case is malicious

if it was filed with the ‘intention or desire to harm another.’” Id. (citation omitted). “Not

all unsuccessful cases qualify as a strike under § 1915(g). Rather, § 1915(g) should be

used to deny a prisoner’s IFP status only when, after careful evaluation of the order

dismissing an action, and other relevant information, the district court determines that the

action was dismissed because it was frivolous, malicious or failed to state a claim.” Id.

The prisoner must be given notice of the potential disqualification under § 1915(g) -- by

either the district court or the defendants – but the prisoner bears the ultimate burden of

persuasion that § 1915(g) does not bar pauper status for him. Id. Andrews thus

implicitly allows the court to sua sponte raise the § 1915(g) problem, but requires the

court to notify the plaintiff of the earlier dismissals it considers to support a § 1915(g)

dismissal and allow the plaintiff an opportunity to be heard on the matter before

dismissing the action. See id. at 1120.

 A review of the dismissal orders in Plaintiff’s prior prisoner actions in this Court

reveal that he has had at least three such cases dismissed on the grounds that they were

frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Day

v. Feinstein, C 96-1796-FMS (dismissed as frivolous); Alford v. Johnson, C 05-1352 JF

(PR) (dismissed for failure to state a claim); Alford v. Sony Electronic Inc., C 05-1581 JF

(PR) (dismissed for failure to state a claim). In light of these dismissals, and because

Case 5:06-cv-04195-JF Document 5 Filed 10/24/06 Page 2 of 4
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 Court notes that such a dismissal would be without prejudice to bringing it in a paid

complaint. See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996). 

Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)

P:pro-se\sj.jf\cr.06\Alford195oscifp

Plaintiff is not under imminent danger of serious physical injury, he is ordered TO

SHOW CAUSE within thirty days of the date this order is filed, why this action should

not be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: _______________ 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

10/20/06

Case 5:06-cv-04195-JF Document 5 Filed 10/24/06 Page 3 of 4
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

Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)

P:pro-se\sj.jf\cr.06\Alford195oscifp

A copy of this ruling was mailed to the following:

Rickey Louis Alford

J-39242

CSP - Salinas Valley IV

P.O. Box 1060

Soledad, CA 93960-1060

Case 5:06-cv-04195-JF Document 5 Filed 10/24/06 Page 4 of 4