Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00025/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00025-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
DeGeorges
Defendant
Lance Williams
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LANCE WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEGEORGES, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 16-cv-0025 TLN CKD P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for violation of civil 

rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Plaintiff has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) 

reads as follows:

In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action . . . [in forma 

pauperis] 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.

A review of court records from the United States District for the Central District of 

California reveals that, before this action was filed, three cases filed by plaintiff in the Central

/////

Case 2:16-cv-00025-TLN-CKD Document 6 Filed 02/24/16 Page 1 of 5
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

District while plaintiff was incarcerated were dismissed at the screening stage1because they were 

time barred.2 A judge in this court, Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman, has recently addressed 

whether dismissal at screening for violation of the applicable statute of limitations amounts to a 

dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under § 1915(g): 

[T]he Tenth Circuit has held that dismissal of a complaint as timebarred, where the time-bar is shown by plaintiff’s own allegations, 

constitutes a strike under § 1915(g). Smith v. Veterans Admin., 

636 F.3d 1306, 1312-13 & n.3 (10th Cir. 2011) (“Whether Mr. 

Smith’s claims in Smith 2, 08cv219, were dismissed as premature 

under Heck [v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994),] or as time-barred 

based on his own allegations, they were dismissed for failure to 

state a claim, and the dismissal is a strike under § 1915(g).”), cert. 

denied, 132 S. Ct. 381 (2011) . . .

In deciding that an inmate’s failure to exhaust is an affirmative 

defense and not a pleading requirement, the Supreme Court stated 

that: 

A complaint is subject to dismissal for failure to 

state a claim if the allegations, taken as true, show 

the plaintiff is not entitled to relief. If the 

allegations, for example, show that relief is barred 

by the applicable statute of limitations, the complaint 

is subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim; 

that does not make the statute of limitations any less 

an affirmative defense, see Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 8(c). 

Whether a particular ground for opposing a claim 

may be the basis for dismissal for failure to state a 

claim depends on whether the allegations in the 

complaint suffice to establish that ground, not on the 

nature of the ground in the abstract. See Leveto v. 

Lapina, 258 F.3d 156, 161 (C.A. 3 2001) (“[A] 

complaint may be subject to dismissal under Rule 

12(b)(6) when an affirmative defense . . . appears on 

its face” (internal quotation marks omitted)). See 

also Lopez-Gonzalez v. Municipality of Comerio, 

404 F.3d 548, 551 (C.A. 1 2005) (dismissing a 

complaint barred by the statute of limitations under 

Rule 12(b)(6)); Pani v. Empire Blue Cross Blue 

 

1

 United States district courts are required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking 

relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 

1915A(a). 

2

 See Williams v. Aparicio, CV14-8640 PA (KK); Williams v. Young, CV 14-8037 PA (KK); 

Williams v. Kerkfoot, CV 14-7583 GW (KK). Judgment is final in the first two cases. The third 

is on appeal at the Ninth Circuit. Whether a dismissal by a district court is on appeal is 

immaterial as to whether the dismissal constitutes a “strike” under § 1915(g). Coleman v. 

Tollefson, 135 S. Ct. 1759, 1763 (2015). 

Case 2:16-cv-00025-TLN-CKD Document 6 Filed 02/24/16 Page 2 of 5
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

Shield, 152 F.3d 67, 74-75 (C.A. 2 1998) 

(dismissing a complaint barred by official immunity 

under Rule 12(b)(6)). See also 5B C. Wright & A. 

Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1357, pp. 

708-710, 721-729 (3d ed. 2004).

Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 214-15 (2007). 

As articulated by another colleague,

When the allegations of a complaint affirmatively 

demonstrate plaintiff’s failure to comply with 

procedural requirements, including the 

administrative exhaustion requirement or statute of 

limitations, dismissal on those grounds constitutes 

dismissal for failure to state a claim for PLRA 

purposes.

Williams v. California Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation, No. 

2:09-cv-0784 AC P, 2013 WL 2151573, *4 (E.D. Cal. May 16, 

2013) (finding that dismissal for non-exhaustion at screening, on 

grounds that constitute failure to state a claim, counts as a strike 

under § 1915(g)), citing Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. at 21-15. In their 

motion, defendants rely on Francis v. Tilton, No. CIV S-09-0262 

GEB GGH P, 2010 WL 235041, *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2010), in 

which the district court found that the reasoning of Jones v. Bock, 

549 U.S. at 215, supports a finding that a statute of limitations 

dismissal qualifies as a § 1915(g) strike. 

More recently, a district judge in the Northern District found that a 

dismissal with prejudice on the ground that an action was barred by 

the statute of limitations should serve as a § 1915(g) strike. 

Bayramoglu v. Cate, No. C 13-1094 YGR (PR), 2014 WL 

3704798, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 23, 2014). In Bayramoglu, the court 

relied on the following authority:

The Ninth Circuit has held that a “claim may be 

dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) on the ground that it 

is barred by the applicable statute of limitations only 

when ‘the running of the statute is apparent on the 

face of the complaint.’” Von Saher v. Norton Simon 

Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 969 (9th 

Cir. 2010)3quoting Huynh v. Chase Manhattan 

Bank, 465 F.3d 992, 997 (9th Cir. 2006). As 

mentioned above, the phrase “fails to state a claim 

on which relief may be granted” [in § 1915(g)] 

parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 12(b)(6) and carries the same 

interpretation. 

Bayramoglu, 2014 WL 3704798, at *3. In Knapp, the Ninth Circuit 

 

3

 Von Saher was overruled on other grounds by Galbraith v. Cnty. of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 1119, 

1125-26 (9th Cir. 2002).

Case 2:16-cv-00025-TLN-CKD Document 6 Filed 02/24/16 Page 3 of 5
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

again confirmed that it interprets dismissal for “‘fail[ure] to state a 

claim upon which relief may be granted,’ to be essentially 

synonymous with a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) 

dismissal.” Knapp, 738 F.3d at 1109 (citing Moore v. Maricopa

Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, 657 F.3d 890, 893 (9th Cir. 2011) (“in 

enacting section 1915(g), Congress chose to mirror the language of 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)”).). . .

[T]he undersigned is persuaded that where the allegations of the 

pleading affirmatively demonstrate a prisoner’s failure to comply 

with procedural requirements, such as the statute of limitations, 

dismissal on such grounds constitutes dismissal for failure to state a 

claim for purposes of the PLRA. See Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. at 

215; Bayramoglu, 2014 WL 3704798, at *3. 

Chatman v. Frazier, 2:13-cv-1605 KJM KJN P, 2015 WL 7455537 at *3-5 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 24, 

2015). 

After reviewing the cases cited above and other relevant case law, the court finds 

Magistrate Judge Newman’s reasoning persuasive. Therefore, the three cases filed by plaintiff in 

the Central District which were all dismissed at screening for failure to comply with the statute of 

limitations count as strikes under § 1915(g).

In addition to the three “strikes” identified above, plaintiff has a fourth “strike” arising out 

of a Ninth Circuit appeal which was dismissed as frivolous before this action was filed.

4

There is no allegation by plaintiff that he is under imminent danger of serious physical 

injury.

In light of the foregoing, plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis will be 

denied. Plaintiff will be granted fourteen days within which to pay the filing fee for this action. 

Failure to pay the filing fee within fourteen days will result in a recommendation that this action 

be dismissed.

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

 

4

 Williams v. Young, No. 15-55967. 

Case 2:16-cv-00025-TLN-CKD Document 6 Filed 02/24/16 Page 4 of 5
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

5

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is denied.

2. Plaintiff is granted fourteen days within which to pay the $400 filing fee for this action. 

Failure to pay the filing fee within fourteen days will result in a recommendation that this action 

be dismissed.

Dated: February 23, 2016

1

will0025.3ks

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-00025-TLN-CKD Document 6 Filed 02/24/16 Page 5 of 5