Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01385/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01385-0/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

3:17-cv-01385-DMS-BGS

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

KEENAN G. WILKINS, aka NERRAH 

BROWN, CDCR #AN-2387,

Plaintiff,

vs.

DANIELLE McGUIRE, Litigation 

Coordinator; A. TINAJERO, 

Asst. Litigation Coordinator,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:17-cv-01385-DMS-BGS

ORDER

1) DENYING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

AS BARRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) 

[ECF No. 2]

AND

(2) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR 

FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEE 

REQUIRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a)

KEENAN G. WILKINS, aka Nerrah Brown (“Plaintiff”), currently incarcerated at 

Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”) in San Diego, California, and 

proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

In both his original, and a subsequently filed First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff 

claims two RJD Litigation Coordinators denied him access to the courts and equal 

protection of the laws on June 29, 2016, by failing to arrange for him to appear for a 

“court call” before the Fifth Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal. See

Case 3:17-cv-01385-DMS-BGS Document 6 Filed 10/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 7
2

3:17-cv-01385-DMS-BGS

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

ECF No. 1 at 3-4; ECF No. 5 at 3-4, 11. 

Plaintiff did not pay the civil filing fee required to commence a civil action when 

he filed suit; instead, he has filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (ECF No. 2).

I. Motion to Proceed IFP

“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 like Plaintiff, however, 

“face an additional hurdle.” Id. In addition to requiring prisoners to “pay the full amount 

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

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

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

(“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 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) (emphasis added). “This subdivision is commonly known as the 

‘three strikes’ provision.” Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1116 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005).

“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). 

“[S]ection 1915(g)’s cap on prior dismissed claims applies to claims dismissed both 

before and after the statute’s effective date.” Id. at 1311.

///

Case 3:17-cv-01385-DMS-BGS Document 6 Filed 10/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 7
3

3:17-cv-01385-DMS-BGS

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

“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); see also El-Shaddai v. Zamora, 833 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2016) 

(noting that when court “review[s] a dismissal to determine whether it counts as a strike, 

the style of the dismissal or the procedural posture is immaterial. Instead, the central 

question is whether the dismissal ‘rang the PLRA bells of frivolous, malicious, or failure 

to state a claim.’”) (quoting Blakely v. Wards, 738 F.3d 607, 615 (4th Cir. 2013)).

Once a prisoner has accumulated three strikes, he is simply prohibited by section 

1915(g) from pursuing any other IFP civil action or appeal in federal court unless he 

alleges 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.”).

II. Application to Plaintiff

As an initial matter, the Court has reviewed both Plaintiff’s original, as well as his 

Amended Complaint, and has ascertained that neither contains any “plausible 

allegations” to suggest he “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)). Instead, as noted 

above, Plaintiff seeks to sue two RJD Litigation Coordinators for failing to arrange for 

him to appear telephonically at an oral argument before the California Court of Appeal on 

June 29, 2016. See ECF No. 1 at 3-4; ECF No. 5 at 3-4. None of Plaintiff’s allegations 

plausibly suggest, however, that he faced any “imminent danger of serious physical 

injury” at the time he filed either his original or his Amended Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(g); Byrd v. Dir. of Corr., No. 15CV2339 GPC (KSC), 2016 WL 773229, at *2

(S.D. Cal. Feb. 29, 2016) (finding prisoner’s allegations of having been denied access to 

Case 3:17-cv-01385-DMS-BGS Document 6 Filed 10/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 7
4

3:17-cv-01385-DMS-BGS

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 and discriminated against based on race and religion insufficient to invoke 

§ 1915(g)’s imminent danger exception).

And while Defendants typically carry the burden to show that 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. 

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).

Therefore, this Court takes judicial notice that Plaintiff, Keenan G. Wilkins, aka 

Nerrah Brown, currently identified as CDCR Inmate #AN-2387, has had at least five

prior prisoner civil actions or appeals dismissed on the grounds that they were frivolous, 

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

They are: 

1) Brown (aka Williams) v. North County Jail, Civil Case No. 3:97-cv02298-MMC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 1997) (Order dismissing civil rights complaint 

regarding the unauthorized, negligent, or intentional deprivation of his property for 

failure to state a claim) (ECF No. 2)1 (strike one);

 

1 This dismissal has also been classified as a “strike” by the Northern District of 

California in a more recent civil rights action filed by Plaintiff. See Wilkins (aka Brown) 

Case 3:17-cv-01385-DMS-BGS Document 6 Filed 10/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 7
5

3:17-cv-01385-DMS-BGS

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) Wilkins v. Ahern, et al., Civil Case No. 3:08-cv-03850-MMC (N.D. 

Cal. Feb. 9, 2009) (Order of Dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A with 

prejudice as duplicative of Wilkins v. Ahern, et al., N. D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:08-

cv-1084 MMC (PR) (ECF No. 8 at 2)

2 (strike two);

3) Wilkins (aka Brown) v. County of Alameda, et al., Civil Case No. 

5:11-cv-02704-LHK (PR) (N.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2011) (Order dismissing amended 

complaint sua sponte per 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a claim with leave 

to amend) (ECF No. 14); (N.D. Cal. May 1, 2012) (Order dismissing civil action 

without further leave to amend as futile) (ECF No. 21 at 3) (strike three);

4) Wilkins v. County of Alameda, et al., Appeal No. 12-16170 (9th Cir. 

Aug. 6, 2012) (Order) (“The district court has certified that this appeal is not taken 

in good faith and has revoked appellant’s in forma pauperis status. Our review of 

the record and of appellant’s opposition to the revocation of his in forma pauperis 

status confirms that appellant is not entitled to in forma pauperis status for this 

appeal because we find the appeal is frivolous.”) (Dkt. Entry 7 at 1)3

(strike four);

 

v. County of Contra Costa, Civil Case No. 3:16-cv-07016-JD (N.D. Cal. April 26, 2017) 

(Order to Show Cause) (ECF No. 18 at 2).

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

“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).

3 “The in forma pauperis statute repeatedly treats the trial and appellate stages of 

litigation as distinct.” Coleman v. Tollefson, __ U.S. __, 135 S. Ct. 1759, 1763-64 (2015) 

(“Nothing in [the PLRA] indicat[es] that Congress considered a trial court dismissal and 

an appellate court decision as if they were a single entity—or that Congress intended the 

former to take effect only when affirmed by the latter.”); see also Richey v. Dahne, 807 

F.3d 1202, 1208 (9th Cir. 2015) (finding appellate court’s denial of prisoner’s request for 

IFP status on appeal on grounds of frivolousness constituted a “strike” under § 1915(g) 

“even though [it] did not dismiss the appeal until later when the [appellant] did not pay 

the filing fee.”).

Case 3:17-cv-01385-DMS-BGS Document 6 Filed 10/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 7
6

3:17-cv-01385-DMS-BGS

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

5) Wilkins (aka Brown) v. County of Alameda, et al., Appeal No. 13-

17060 (9th Cir. Jan. 13, 2014) (Order) (“The district court has certified that this 

appeal is not taken in good faith and has revoked appellant’s in forma pauperis 

status. Our review of the record confirms that appellant is not entitled to in forma 

pauperis status for this appeal because we find the appeal is frivolous.”) (Dkt. 

Entry 7 at 1) (strike five).4

Accordingly, because Plaintiff has, while incarcerated, accumulated more than 

three “strikes” pursuant to § 1915(g), and he failed to make a “plausible allegation” that 

he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed either his 

Complaint or his Amended Complaint, he is not entitled to the privilege of proceeding 

IFP in this civil action. See Cervantes, 493 F.3d at 1055; Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 

1176, 1180 (9th Cir. 1999) (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.”).

III. Conclusion and Order

 For the reasons set forth above, the Court:

1) DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP [ECF No. 2] as barred by 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(g);

///

 

4 Plaintiff has also recently had his IFP status revoked in the Northern District of 

California pursuant to § 1915(g) in Wilkins (aka Brown) v. County of Contra Costa, Civil 

Case No. 3:16-cv-07016-JD (N.D. Cal. April 26, 2017) (Order to Show Cause) (ECF No. 

18 at 2); (N.D. Cal. July 21, 2017) (Order Dismissing Case) (ECF No. 27). A Motion to 

Revoke his IFP status pursuant to § 1915(g) is also currently pending in the Eastern 

District of California. See Wilkins (aka Brown) v. Gonzalez, et al., E.D. Cal. July 31, 

2017) (ECF No. 50).

Case 3:17-cv-01385-DMS-BGS Document 6 Filed 10/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 7
7

3:17-cv-01385-DMS-BGS

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) DISMISSES this civil action without prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure 

to pay the full statutory and administrative $400 civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1914(a);

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

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

Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962); Gardner v. Pogue, 558 F.2d 548, 

550 (9th Cir. 1977) (indigent appellant is permitted to proceed IFP on appeal only if 

appeal would not be frivolous); and

4) DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 10, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-01385-DMS-BGS Document 6 Filed 10/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 7