Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-06319/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-06319-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL C. HAMILTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

RON DAVIS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-06319-EMC 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE. 

CONTEMPLATED DISMISSAL

Paul C. Hamilton, a prisoner at San Quentin State Prison, has filed this pro se civil action

and has applied to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

A prisoner may not bring a civil action in forma pauperis 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 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). Section 1915(g) 

requires that the court consider prisoner actions dismissed before, as well as after, the statute’s 

1996 enactment. 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 carries the same interpretation, the word “frivolous” refers to a case that is “‘of little 

weight or importance: having no basis in law or fact,’” and the word “malicious” refers to a case 

“filed with the ‘intention or desire to harm another.’” Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th 

Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). Only cases within one of these three categories can be counted as 

strikes for § 1915(g) purposes, so the mere fact that the prisoner has filed many cases does not 

Case 3:19-cv-06319-EMC Document 10 Filed 12/20/19 Page 1 of 3
2

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

Northern District of California

alone warrant dismissal of the present action under § 1915(g). See Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1121. 

Rather, dismissal of an action under § 1915(g) should only occur when, “after careful evaluation 

of the order dismissing an [earlier] 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.” Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1121.

Andrews requires that a prisoner be given notice of the potential applicability of § 1915(g), 

by either the district court or the defendants, but also requires the prisoner to bear the ultimate 

burden of persuasion that § 1915(g) does not bar pauper status for him. Andrews, 398 F.3d at 

1121. Andrews implicitly allows the court to sua sponte raise the § 1915(g) problem, but requires 

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

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

action. Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1120. A dismissal under § 1915(g) means that a prisoner cannot 

proceed with his action as a pauper under § 1915, but he still may pursue his claims if he pays the 

full filing fee at the outset of the action.

Mr. Hamilton is now given notice that the Court believes the following dismissals may be 

counted as dismissals for purposes of § 1915(g): (1) Hamilton v. Roe, Central District of 

California Case No. 97-5176-CBM (dismissed for failure to state a claim); (2) Hamilton v. Garcia, 

Southern District of California Case No. 98-1769-K (granting Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for

failure to state a claim); (3) Hamilton v. Garcia, Southern District of California Case No. 99-0493-

JM (dismissed for failure to state a claim and failure to exhaust administrative remedies);

(4) Hamilton v. Garcia, Southern District of California Case No. 99-0563-K (dismissed for failure 

to state a claim); (5) Hamilton v. Smith, Southern District of California Case No. 00-cv-1720-IEGJFS (dismissed for failure to state a claim and failure to pay filing fee); and (6) Hamilton v. 

Jackson, U.S. Supreme Court Case No. 07-5683 (10/1/07 order denying leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis and dismissing petition for writ of certiorari pursuant to S. Ct. Rule 39.8 (“If satisfied 

that a petition for a writ of certiorari . . . is frivolous or malicious, the Court may deny leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis”)). The Court made its evaluation of these cases based on the dismissal 

orders and docket sheets in them. See Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1120 (sometimes the docket records 

Case 3:19-cv-06319-EMC Document 10 Filed 12/20/19 Page 2 of 3
3

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

Northern District of California

may be sufficient, and sometime the actual court files may need to be consulted). 

In light of these dismissals, and because Mr. Hamilton does not appear to be under 

imminent danger of serious physical injury, he is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing 

filed no later than January 24, 2020, why in forma pauperis status should not be denied and this 

action should not be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). In the alternative to showing 

cause why the action should not be dismissed, Mr. Hamilton may avoid dismissal by paying the 

full $400.00 filing fee by the deadline.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 20, 2019

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-06319-EMC Document 10 Filed 12/20/19 Page 3 of 3