Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05517/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05517-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

KRZYSZTOF WOLINSKI,

Plaintiff,

v.

S. HATTON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-05517-SI 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE. 

CONTEMPLATED DISMISSAL

Re: Dkt. Nos. 1, 6

Krzysztof Wolinski, a prisoner at Salinas Valley State Prison, filed this pro se civil rights 

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He also has applied to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915.

A prisoner may not bring a civil action in forma pauperis 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). Section 1915(g) 

requires that this court consider prisoner actions dismissed before, as well as after, the statute's 

1996 enactment. Tierney v. Kupers, 128 F.3d 1310, 1311-12 (9th Cir. 1997).

For purposes of a dismissal that may be counted under § 1915(g), the phrase “fails to state 

a claim on which relief may be granted” parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

12(b)(6) and carries the same interpretation, the word “frivolous” refers to a case that is “‘of little 

weight or importance: having no basis in law or fact,’” and the word “malicious” refers to a case 

“filed with the ‘intention or desire to harm another.’” Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th 

Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). Only cases within one of these three categories can be counted as 

Case 3:15-cv-05517-SI Document 11 Filed 03/28/16 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

strikes for § 1915(g) purposes, so the mere fact that Wolinski has filed many cases does not alone 

warrant dismissal of the present action under § 1915(g). See id. Rather, dismissal of an action 

under § 1915(g) should only occur when, “after careful evaluation of the order dismissing an 

[earlier] action, and other relevant information, the district court determines that the action was 

dismissed because it was frivolous, malicious or failed to state a claim.” Id.

Andrews requires that a 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 sua sponte raise 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. See id. at 1120. A 

dismissal under § 1915(g) means that a prisoner cannot proceed with his action as a pauper under 

§ 1915, but he still may pursue his claims if he pays the full filing fee at the outset of the action.

Wolinski is now given notice that the court believes the following dismissals may be 

counted as dismissals for purposes of § 1915(g): First, in Wolinski v. Los Angeles County 

Superior Court, C. D. Cal. Case No. 12-CV-6775 UA-MRW, the court denied the in forma 

pauperis application because the complaint was “frivolous, malicious or fail[ed] to state a claim 

upon which relief may be granted,” and the action was dismissed. Docket No. 2 at 1 in C. D. Cal. 

Case No. 12-CV-6775 UA-MRW. See O’Neal v. Price, 531 F.3d 1146, 1152 (9th Cir. 2008) (case 

is “dismissed” for the purposes of § 1915(g) “when the court denies the prisoner’s application to 

file the action without prepayment of the filing fee on the ground that the complaint is frivolous, 

malicious or fails to state a claim, and thereupon terminates the complaint.”) Second, in Wolinski 

v. Court of Appeal Second Appellate District, C. D. Cal. Case No. 12-CV-6902 UA-MRW, the 

court denied the in forma pauperis application because the complaint was “frivolous, malicious or 

fail[ed] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” and the action was dismissed. Docket 

No. 2 at 1 in C. D. Cal. Case No. 12-CV-6902 UA-MRW. Third, Wolinski v. Stoll, E. D. Cal. 

Case No. 15-CV-468 AWI-JLT, was dismissed in October 2015 for failure to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted. Docket Nos. 18 and 22 in E. D. Cal. Case No. 15-cv-468 AWI-JLT. 

Case 3:15-cv-05517-SI Document 11 Filed 03/28/16 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

Fourth, Wolinski v. Shaffer, E. D. Cal. Case No. 14-cv-2492 MCE-EFB, was dismissed in August 

2015 for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Docket Nos. 10 and 17 in E. D. 

Cal. Case No. 14-cv-2492 MCE-EFB. The court made its evaluation of these cases based on the 

dismissal orders and docket sheets in them. See Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1120 (sometimes the docket 

records may be sufficient, and sometime the actual court files may need to be consulted). 

In light of these dismissals, and because Wolinski does not appear to be under imminent 

danger of serious physical injury, he is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing filed no later 

than April 29, 2016 why in forma pauperis status should not be denied and this action should not 

be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). In the alternative to showing cause why the action 

should not be dismissed, Wolinksi may avoid dismissal by paying the full $400.00 filing fee by 

the deadline.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 28, 2016

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-05517-SI Document 11 Filed 03/28/16 Page 3 of 3