Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-04442/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-04442-1/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 of Dismissal

P:pro-se\sj.jf\cr.06\Alford442dis 1

NOT FOR CITATION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.

DR. WINN, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-4442 JF (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, a state prisoner and frequent litigant in this Court, filed a civil rights

complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against several psychologists and psychiatrists

concerning his mental competency trial in Monterey Superior Court. Plaintiff seeks to

proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. On October 24, 2006, the Court

issued an Order to Show Cause to Plaintiff as to why the instant complaint should not be

dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Andrews v. King, 398

F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005). 

On November 28, 2006, Plaintiff filed a response to the Court’s order. In his

response, Plaintiff does not address his prior dismissed actions, or dispute that these prior

cases, as set forth below, qualify as strikes under 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). Plaintiff alleges that

**Original filed 5/1/07**

Case 5:06-cv-04442-JF Document 6 Filed 05/01/07 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 of Dismissal

P:pro-se\sj.jf\cr.06\Alford442dis 2

“my life has to be in danger, placed in isolation and confinement . . . racial discrimination

based race.” See Pl.’s Response at 1. 

The plain language of the imminent danger clause in § 1915(g) indicates that

imminent danger is to be assessed at the time of filing, not at the time of the alleged

constitutional violations. See Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307, 312 (3d Cir.

2001) (en banc) (plaintiff’s allegations of past acts of physical harassment were not

sufficiently specific or related to support an inference of imminent danger); Medberry v.

Butler, 185 F.3d 1189, 1192-93 (11th Cir. 1999) (finding no imminent danger where

plaintiff had been placed in administrative segregation following physical assaults by

fellow inmates and before he filed his complaint); Banos v. O’Guin, 144 F.3d 883, 885

(5th Cir. 1998) (§ 1915(g) applies on appeal at time request to proceed in forma pauperis

is filed). Here, Plaintiff’s allegations do not satisfy the “imminent danger” exception to

1915(g). Plaintiff fails to explain the imminency or severity of any injuries or any

potential danger he faces in isolated confinement. He does not address the applicability

of section 1915(g), and he has not otherwise paid the filing fee for this civil rights action. 

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

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). 

 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-04442-JF Document 6 Filed 05/01/07 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

Order of Dismissal

P:pro-se\sj.jf\cr.06\Alford442dis 3

Plaintiff is not under imminent danger of serious physical injury, the instant civil rights

action is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff may

file his claims in a paid complaint in a new civil rights action. The Clerk shall terminate

any pending motions and close the file. No filing fee is due. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: _______________ 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

4/30/07

Case 5:06-cv-04442-JF Document 6 Filed 05/01/07 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 of Dismissal

P:pro-se\sj.jf\cr.06\Alford442dis 4

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-04442-JF Document 6 Filed 05/01/07 Page 4 of 4