Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01905/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01905-0/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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\11cv1905-deny-IFP-1915(g).wpd -1- 11cv1905 LAB (WVG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID WAYNE WILSON,

CDCR #K-66474,

Civil No. 11-1905 LAB (WVG)

Plaintiff, ORDER:

(1) DENYING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

AS BARRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)

[ECF No. 5] 

AND 

(2) DISMISSING CASE FOR

FAILURE TO PAY FILING

FEE REQUIRED BY 

28 U.S.C. § 1914(a)

vs.

D. PARAMO, Acting Warden; T. KABBANMILLER, Chief Deputy Warden; ALAN

HERNANDEZ, Assoc. Warden; 

G. SAVALA, Captain; E. GARCIA, Captain;

V. SOSA, Correctional Counselor; 

A. ALLAMBY, Lieutenant; SUZAN L.

HUBBARD, Director of Adult Institutions;

GEORGE A. NEOTTI, X-Warden; SARA

MOLONE, Ombudsman of Dept. of

Corrections; D. FOSTON, Chief Inmate

Appeals; A. CHRISTIAN, Sergeant,

Defendants.

Plaintiff, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at Richard J. Donovan Correctional

Facility (“RJD”) and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. Plaintiff seeks to sue a host of RJD and California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation officials on grounds that they retaliated against him and denied his rights to equal

Case 3:11-cv-01905-LAB-WVG Document 8 Filed 09/27/11 Page 1 of 6
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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\11cv1905-deny-IFP-1915(g).wpd -2- 11cv1905 LAB (WVG)

protection, due process and to be free from cruel and unusual punishments in October 2010 and

July 2011 by inadequately responding to his complaints demanding the “recall” of RJD’s Men’s

Advisory Council (“MAC”), placing him in the Administrative Segregation Unit (“ASU”), and

conspiring to deny him witnesses, vitamins, protein supplements, eye drops, socks, underwear,

writing paper and recreational reading material. See Compl. at 5-7.

Plaintiff has not prepaid the civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); instead, he

has filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) [ECF

No. 5].

I.

Motion to Proceed IFP

Section 1915 of Title 28 of the United States Code allows certain litigants to pursue civil

litigation IFP, that is, without the full prepayment of fees or costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2).

However, the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) amended section 1915 to preclude the

privilege to proceed IFP:

. . . 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 can be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger

of serious physical injury.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). “This subdivision is commonly known as the ‘three strikes’ provision.”

Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1116 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005) (hereafter “Andrews”). “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).

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:11-cv-01905-LAB-WVG Document 8 Filed 09/27/11 Page 2 of 6
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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\11cv1905-deny-IFP-1915(g).wpd -3- 11cv1905 LAB (WVG)

“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). Once a prisoner has

accumulated three strikes, he is prohibited by section 1915(g) from pursuing any other IFP action

in federal court unless he can show 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 of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)

As an initial matter, the Court has carefully reviewed Plaintiff’s Complaint and has

ascertained that there is no “plausible allegation” to suggest Plaintiff “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)). As noted above, Plaintiff’s pleading contains a litany of grievances and

comprises voluminous exhibits all cataloguing his attempts in 2010 to unseat fellow inmates

assigned to RJD’s MAC based on allegations of racial discrimination. (Compl. at 5.) Plaintiff

contends that in reprisal for these grievances and other litigation activity, he was placed in ASU

in July 2011, denied access to confidential witnesses during a disciplinary hearing and subject

to various other restrictions on his access to medical “appliances” and the prison law library.

(Id. at 6-7.)

A court “‘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). Thus, this Court takes judicial

notice that Plaintiff David Wayne Wilson, aka David W. Wilson, CDCR #K-66474, has had at

Case 3:11-cv-01905-LAB-WVG Document 8 Filed 09/27/11 Page 3 of 6
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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\11cv1905-deny-IFP-1915(g).wpd -4- 11cv1905 LAB (WVG)

least eight prior prisoner civil actions dismissed on the grounds that they were frivolous,

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

 They are: 

1) Wilson v. Yarbrough, Civil Case No. 2:02-cv-08293-UA-RNB (C.D. Cal., West.

Div.- Los Angeles Feb. 26, 2003 Order denying leave to proceed IFP and dismissing action as

“legally and/or factually frivolous” [ECF No. 4]) (strike one);

2) Wilson v. Schwartz, et al., Civil Case No. 2:05-cv-01649-GEB-CMK (E.D. Cal.

Sept. 26, 2006 Findings & Recommendations (“F&Rs”) re Dismissal for failing to state a claim

[ECF No. 24]); (E.D. Cal. October 31, 1006 Order Adopting F&Rs and Dismissing Action

[ECF No. 26]) (strike two); 

3) Wilson v. Veal, et al., Civil Case No. 2:06-cv-00067-FCD-KJM (E.D. Cal. May

8, 2007 F&Rs re Dismissal as frivolous and for failure to state a claim [ECF No. 9]); (E.D. Cal.

June 4, 2007 Order Adopting F&Rs and Dismissing Action [ECF No. 11]) (strike three); 

4) Wilson v. Dovey, et al., Civil Case No. 2:06-cv-01032-FCD-EFB (E.D. Cal. Dec.

20, 2006 F&Rs re dismissal of action for failing to state a claim [ECF No. 11]); (E.D. Cal.

March 8, 2007 Order adopting F&Rs and dismissing action for failure to state a claim [ECF No.

13]) (strike four);

5) Wilson v. Zafra, et al., Civil Case No. 2:06-cv-01577-FCD-KJM (E.D. Cal. Sept.

19, 2008 Order and F&Rs that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss be granted for failing to state a

claim [ECF No. 42]); (E.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2008 Order Adopting F&Rs and Dismissing action

for failing to state a claim [ECF No. 44]) (strike five); 

6) Wilson v. Dovey, et al., Civil Case No. 2:06-cv-02553-JKS-EFB (E.D. Cal. Aug.

31, 2007 F&Rs re dismissal of action for failure to state a claim per 28 U.S.C. § 1915A [ECF

No. 13]; (E.D. Cal. March 11, 2008 Order adopting F&Rs and dismissing action with prejudice

for failure to state a claim [ECF No. 18]) (strike six);

7) Wilson v. Director of Adult Institutions, et al., Civil Case No. 2:08-cv-02904-

WBS-GGH (E.D. Cal. March 25, 2009 Order and F&Rs re dismissal of action as “wholly

/ / /

Case 3:11-cv-01905-LAB-WVG Document 8 Filed 09/27/11 Page 4 of 6
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

 The Central District of California has also precluded Plaintiff from proceeding IFP pursuant 1

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) absent allegations of “imminent danger of serious physical injury.” See Wilson

v. Haws, Civil Case No. 2:07-cv-08019-UA-RNB (C.D. Cal., West. Div., Los Angeles Dec. 19, 2007

Order to Show Cause why request to proceed IFP should not be denied pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)

[ECF No. 2]; (C.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2008 Order Denying Plaintiff’s Request to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g) [ECF No. 4]).

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\11cv1905-deny-IFP-1915(g).wpd -5- 11cv1905 LAB (WVG)

frivolous [ECF No. 13]); (E.D. Cal. April 24, 2009 Order adopting F&Rs, dismissing action and

closing case) [ECF No. 19]) (strike seven); and

8) Wilson v. Fitter, et al., Civil Case No. 2:09-cv-01162-DDP-RNB (C.D. Cal.,

West. Div.- Los Angeles Nov. 5, 2009 Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) to Grant

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant

to FED.R.CIV.P. 12(b)(6) [ECF No. 31]); (C.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2010 Order Adopting R&R and

Granting Motion to Dismiss action with prejudice [ECF No. 34]) (strike eight).

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

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

that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed his Complaint, he

is not entitled to the privilege of proceeding IFP in this action. See Cervantes, 493 F.3d at

1055; Rodriguez, 169 F.3d at 1180 (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.”).1

III.

Conclusion and Order

 For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby:

1) DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP [ECF No. 5] pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g);

2) DISMISSES this action without prejudice for failure to pay the $350 civil filing

fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), and

/ / /

Case 3:11-cv-01905-LAB-WVG Document 8 Filed 09/27/11 Page 5 of 6
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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\11cv1905-deny-IFP-1915(g).wpd -6- 11cv1905 LAB (WVG)

3) FURTHER 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).

The Clerk is instructed to close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 27, 2011

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-01905-LAB-WVG Document 8 Filed 09/27/11 Page 6 of 6