Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02183/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02183-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1 

3:19-cv-02183-MMA-AGS 

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 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RAMIRO PLASCENCIA OROZCO, 

aka Alberto Jose Del Muro, 

aka Alberto Jose Muro-Guerrero, 

BOP #40467-198, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

JOHN A. HOUSTON, Judge; 

Hon. ALANA W. ROBINSON, Sr.; 

LAURA E. DUFFY, U.S. Attorney Chief; 

MARIETTA IRENE GECKOS, U.S. 

Attorney Assistance; FEDERAL 

DEFENDERS, CHIEF, U.S. Gov. Court, 

Defendants. 

 Case No.: 3:19-cv-02183-MMA-AGS 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

AS BARRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); 

 

[Doc. No. 2]

DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR 

FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEE 

REQUIRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) 

Ramiro Plascencia Orozco, also known as Alberto Jose Del Muro and Alberto Jose 

Muro-Gurrero (“Plaintiff”), a prisoner incarcerated at the Federal Medical Center in Fort 

Worth, Texas, and proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights Complaint (“Compl.”) 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Compl., Doc. No. 1. Plaintiff did not prepay the civil 

filing fee required to commence a civil action at the time he filed this action; instead, he 

has filed a Motion for Leave to proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a). See Doc. No. 2. 

Case 3:19-cv-02183-MMA-AGS Document 3 Filed 01/15/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
2 

3:19-cv-02183-MMA-AGS 

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

I. Motion to Proceed IFP 

 A. Standard of Review 

 “All persons, not just prisoners, may seek IFP status.” Moore v. Maricopa County 

Sheriff’s Office, 657 F.3d 890, 892 (9th Cir. 2011). Prisoners like Haywood, however, 

“face an additional hurdle.” Id. 

In addition to requiring prisoners to “pay the full amount of a filing fee,” in 

“monthly installments” or “increments” as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3)(b), the 

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

to proceed IFP in cases where 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). “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). 

 “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). When courts “review a dismissal to determine whether it counts as a 

strike, the style of the dismissal or the procedural posture is immaterial. Instead, the 

Case 3:19-cv-02183-MMA-AGS Document 3 Filed 01/15/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
3 

3:19-cv-02183-MMA-AGS 

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

central question is whether the dismissal ‘rang the PLRA bells of frivolous, malicious, or 

failure to state a claim.’” El-Shaddai v. Zamora, 833 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2016) 

(quoting Blakely v. Wards, 738 F.3d 607, 615 (4th Cir. 2013)).

Once a prisoner has accumulated three strikes, section 1915(g) prohibits his pursuit 

of any subsequent IFP civil action or appeal in federal court unless she faces “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.”). 

B. Discussion 

 Plaintiff’s Complaint does not allege any basis for § 1983 liability at all, let alone 

assert “plausible allegations” to suggest he “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)). 

Instead, as best the Court can decipher, Plaintiff seeks to federal judges, prosecutors, and 

defenders for having falsely imprisoned him as the result of “fraud” and “discrimination” 

during the course of at least three separate federal criminal proceedings: 94-cr-00296-B, 

05-cr-01714-JM, and 08-cr-0139-BEN.1

 See Compl. at 2, 4‒5. But claims of false 

imprisonment are “not the sort of serious physical injury contemplated by the in forma 

pauperis statute.” Langston v. White, No. 2:19-CV-1168 DB P, 2019 WL 3326181, at *2 

(E.D. Cal. July 3, 2019), report and recommendation adopted, No. 2:19-CV-1168-KJMDBP, 2019 WL 3318529 (E.D. Cal. July 24, 2019) (citing Smith v. Baldwin, No. 18-cv1503-NJR, 2018 WL 3993629, at *2 (S.D. Ill. Aug. 21, 2018); Berryhill v. Oklahoma, 

No. CIV-13-1370-W, 2014 WL 679111, at *2 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 30, 2014); Weidow v. 

Anderson, No. 3:07-cv-510/LAC/MD, 2008 WL 168888, at *2 (N.D. Fla. Jan. 16, 2008)). 

                                               

1

 In fact, “[o]ver his 46-year career as an illegal entrant, [Plaintiff] has been deported or 

removed dozens of times.” United States v. Plascencia-Orozco, 852 F.3d 910, 914 (9th 

Cir. 2017). 

Case 3:19-cv-02183-MMA-AGS Document 3 Filed 01/15/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
4 

3:19-cv-02183-MMA-AGS 

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

Defendants typically carry the initial burden to produce evidence demonstrating a 

prisoner is not entitled to proceed IFP, Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1119, but “in some 

instances, the district court docket may be sufficient to show that a prior dismissal 

satisfies at least one on the criteria under § 1915(g) and therefore counts as a strike.” Id.

at 1120. Therefore, this Court takes judicial notice of its own records,2

 together with the 

docket proceedings of other federal courts available on PACER, and finds that Plaintiff 

Ramiro Plascencia Orozco, aka Alberto Jose Del Muro, aka Alberto Jose Muro-Guerrero, 

and identified as BOP #40467-198, while incarcerated, has had at least six prior prisoner 

civil actions or appeals dismissed on the grounds that they were frivolous, malicious, or 

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

They are: 

1) Del Muro v. Villasenor, et al., Civil Case No. 3:08-cv-01712-WPOR (S.D. Cal., Mar. 3, 2009) (Order Sua Sponte Dismissing First Amended 

Complaint for failing to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 

1915A(b)) (Doc. No. 8) (strike one); 

2) Del Muro v. Benitez, et al., Civil Case No. 3:09-cv-01462-JLS-PCL 

(S.D. Cal., July 15, 2009) (Order Dismissing Civil Action as duplicative and 

frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)) (Doc. No. 3) (strike two); 

3) Del Muro v. Benitez, et al., Civil Case No. 3:09-cv-1264-BTM-BLM 

(S.D. Cal., Oct. 1, 2009) (Order Dismissing Second Amended Complaint for 

failing to state a claim and for seeking monetary damages against immune 

defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b)) (Doc. No. 8) 

(strike three); 

                                               

2 A court may take judicial notice of its own records, see Molus v. Swan, Civil Case No. 

3:05-cv-00452-MMA-WMc, 2009 WL 160937, *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2009) (citing United 

States v. Author Services, 804 F.2d 1520, 1523 (9th Cir. 1986)); Gerritsen v. Warner Bros. 

Entm’t Inc., 112 F. Supp. 3d 1011, 1034 (C.D. Cal. 2015), and “‘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). 

Case 3:19-cv-02183-MMA-AGS Document 3 Filed 01/15/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
5 

3:19-cv-02183-MMA-AGS 

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

4) Del Muro v. Benitez, et al., Appeal No. 09-56625 (Ninth Cir. Ct. 

App., Jan. 21, 2010) (Order denying appellant’s motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis “because we find that the appeal is frivolous.”) (DktEntry 9) (strike 

four); 

5) Plascencia-Orozco v. Wilson, et al., Civil Case No. 4:18-cv-00527-

A (N.D. Texas, July 2, 2019) (Order dismissing Complaint for failing to state 

a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)) 

(Doc. No. 7) (strike five); and 

6) Plascencia-Orozco v. Wilson, et al., Appeal No. 18-10991 (5th Cir. 

Ct. App. July 10, 2019) (unpub.) (Order dismissing appeal as frivolous) (“The 

district court’s dismissal of Plascencia-Orozco’s complaint and our dismissal 

of his appeal both count as strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).”) (strike six). 

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

three “strikes” 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 civil action. See Cervantes, 493 

F.3d at 1055; Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1180 (9th Cir. 1999) (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.”). 

III. Conclusion and Order 

For the reasons set forth above, the Court: 

1) DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP (Doc. No. 2) as barred by 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(g); 

2) DISMISSES this civil action without prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure 

to pay the full statutory and administrative $400 civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1914(a); 

// 

// 

Case 3:19-cv-02183-MMA-AGS Document 3 Filed 01/15/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
6 

3:19-cv-02183-MMA-AGS 

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) 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); and, 

4) DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to close the case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE: January 15, 2020 _______________________________________ 

 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 

 United States District Judge 

Case 3:19-cv-02183-MMA-AGS Document 3 Filed 01/15/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6