Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02169/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02169-2/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 

IN RE: LEON EUGENE MORRIS,

Plaintiff.

Case No. 15-cv-01858-WHO (PR)

Case No. 15-cv-02169-WHO (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Dkt. No. 4

Plaintiff Leon Morris, a state prisoner and frequent litigant in federal court, was 

ordered to show cause on or before November 30, 2015 (a date set after the Court granted 

Morris an extension of time) why 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) does not bar pauper status in these 

two federal civil rights actions. Morris has failed to file a response to the Order to Show 

Cause in either suit. He therefore has not shown that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) does not bar 

pauper status in these actions. Accordingly, these two actions will be dismissed.1

 

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 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 

 

1 The Court recently dismissed on the same grounds another of Morris’s suits (No. 14-5134 

WHO). 

Case 3:15-cv-02169-WHO Document 9 Filed 01/07/16 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

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). 

Under the law of this Circuit, plaintiff must be afforded an opportunity to persuade 

the Court that § 1915(g) does not bar pauper status for him. See Andrews v. King, 398 

F.3d 1113, 1120 (9th Cir. 2005). Andrews requires that the 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. Id. Andrews implicitly allows the Court to raise sua sponte 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. Id. A dismissal under § 1915(g) means 

that a prisoner cannot proceed with his action as a pauper under § 1915(g), but he still may 

pursue his claims if he pays the full filing fee at the outset of the action. 

The Court met its burden when it informed Morris of the earlier dismissals (through 

the Order to Show Cause) and gave him an opportunity to respond. He was informed that 

the following three actions would be considered as strikes: (1) Morris v. Duncan, 

No. C 02-00928 MJJ (N.D. Cal. May 3, 2002) (civil rights action dismissed at screening 

for failure to state a claim); (2) Morris v. Lushia, No. C 00-56600 (9th Cir. Apr. 16, 2001) 

(appeal dismissed for failure to pay filing fee); and (3) Morris v. Woodford, No. C 06-

15869 (9th Cir. Jun. 11, 2007) (appeal dismissed and judgment of district court summarily 

affirmed on the merits). In a prior action, the Court determined that these three actions 

qualify as strikes under § 1915(g).2

 

Morris, however, has not met his burden. He has not filed an opposition to the 

motion, nor otherwise shown that § 1915(g) does not bar pauper status for him. He 

therefore may proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) only if he is seeking relief from a danger 

 

2 Case No. 12-2480 WHO, Docket No. 33.

Case 3:15-cv-02169-WHO Document 9 Filed 01/07/16 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

of serious physical injury which is “imminent” at the time of filing. Andrews v. Cervantes, 

493 F.3d 1047, 1052-53 (9th Cir. 2007). He has made no such allegation or showing and 

therefore has not shown that he is entitled to protection under the imminent danger 

exception. 

Dismissal under § 1915(g) is proper because Morris was given proper notice and 

has had an opportunity to be heard on the matter before the Court dismisses these actions. 

Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1120. Accordingly, these two actions are hereby DISMISSED 

without prejudice to Morris filing new paid complaints. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The 

actions are also DISMISSED under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) because he 

failed to prosecute this action when he did not respond to the Order to Show Cause. 

His motions to proceed IFP (Docket No. 4 in both actions) are DENIED. 

The Clerk shall terminate Docket No. 4 in No. 15-02169, enter judgment in favor of 

defendants in both actions, and close the files. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 7, 2016

_________________________ 

WILLIAM H. ORRICK 

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-02169-WHO Document 9 Filed 01/07/16 Page 3 of 3