Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01658/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01658-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAS ADISA GAMBA OLUWA, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

R.G. BLIESNER, et al.,

Defendants. ____________________________________ 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-1658 MMC (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

On March 2, 2006, plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the abovetitled civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, challenging the conditions of his

incarceration. On July 17, 2006, in its Order to Show Cause Re Dismissal Pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (hereinafter “Order to Show Cause”), the Court found plaintiff had “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,” and further found

plaintiff was not “under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g). Consequently, the Court ordered plaintiff to show cause why the action should

not be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113,

1121 (9th Cir. 2005). 

On August 3, 2006, plaintiff filed a document titled “Why This Action Should Not Be

Dismissed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g),” (Docket No. 5), wherein plaintiff contests the

Court’s finding that he is not “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” within the

meaning of § 1915(g). In its Order to Show Cause, the Court explained the basis of the

Court’s finding that defendants’ refusal to provide plaintiff with a diet conforming to the

Case 3:06-cv-01658-MMC Document 12 Filed 08/27/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

requirements of his Rastafarian religion does not put him at risk of “imminent danger of

serious physical injury.” (See Order to Show Cause, July 17, 2006, at 3:18-4:11.) Plaintiff

offers no new facts that would call into question the correctness of the Court’s determination,

nor does he present any other basis to support a finding that he is under “imminent danger of

serious physical injury.” 

On August 14, 2006, plaintiff filed a document titled “Brief Statement Under 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g)” (Docket No. 6), wherein plaintiff contests the Court’s finding that he has

three or more qualifying dismissals under § 1915(g). Specifically, he argues the Court

should not have found the dismissal of Oluwa v. Harrison, No. 01-0973 MMC (PR), was a

qualifying dismissal, because, he asserts, the case was dismissed erroneously on the ground

the complaint failed to state a cognizable claim for relief. Plaintiff does not disagree with the

proposition that a case dismissed for “failure to state a cognizable claim for relief” is a

qualifying dismissal under § 1915(g). See Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1117 n.3, 1121 (finding

dismissal “for failure to state a claim” constitutes qualifying dismissal under § 1915(g)). 

Rather, he attempts to revisit the propriety of the prior dismissal, arguing the case was

improperly dismissed on the stated ground. While such argument might be considered on an

appeal of the dismissal, plaintiff cites no authority, and the Court is aware of none, that

requires a district court to revisit the merits of a prior dismissal where the only question

before the court is whether the dismissal, on the grounds stated, is a qualifying dismissal

under § 1915(g). 

In his August 14, 2006 filing, plaintiff further argues that § 1915(g) is

unconstitutional. The Ninth Circuit has rejected plaintiff’s argument, and found § 1915(g)

passes constitutional muster. See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1180-82 (9th Cir.

1999) (holding § 1915(g) does not violate due process, equal protection, Ex Post Facto

Clause or separation of powers).

In sum, plaintiff was given the opportunity to be heard on the question of whether the

instant action is subject to dismissal under § 1915(g), see Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1120-21, and

his responses to the Court’s Order to Show Cause fail to establish that § 1915(g) does not

Case 3:06-cv-01658-MMC Document 12 Filed 08/27/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

apply. 

Accordingly, the above-titled action is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice to

plaintiff’s refiling his claims in a new case in which plaintiff pays the filing fee, and the First

Amended Complaint, filed February 26, 2007 (Docket No. 9), is hereby STRICKEN. 

The Clerk shall close the file.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 27, 2007 _________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01658-MMC Document 12 Filed 08/27/07 Page 3 of 3