Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06349/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06349-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rickey Louis Alford
Plaintiff
Molly C. Dwyer
Defendant

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICKEY LOUIS ALFORD,

Plaintiff,

v.

DANIEL C. HOHLER,

Defendant.

RICKEY LOUIS ALFORD,

Plaintiff,

v.

MOLLY C. DWYER,

Defendant.

RICKEY LOUIS ALFORD,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, 

Defendant.

RICKEY LOUIS ALFORD,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALKA SAGAR,

Defendant.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

REGARDING CONTEMPLATED 

DISMISSAL

Case No. 18-cv-06348-JST (PR)

Case No. 18-cv-06349-JST (PR)

Case No. 18-cv-6383-JST (PR)

Case No. 18-cv-6396-JST (PR)

Case 3:18-cv-06349-JST Document 5 Filed 01/16/19 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

Plaintiff, a state prisoner and frequent litigant in this Court, filed the above-referenced pro

se civil rights complaints pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma 

pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The matters are now before the Court for consideration of 

plaintiff’s in forma pauperis applications.

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 

strikes for § 1915(g) purposes, so the mere fact that plaintiff has filed many cases in the federal 

courts in California alone does not warrant dismissal 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 the 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. at 1120. 

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 

Case 3:18-cv-06349-JST Document 5 Filed 01/16/19 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

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

under § 1915(g), but he still may pursue his claims if he pays the full filing fee at the outset of the 

action.

A review of the dismissal orders in plaintiff’s prior prisoner actions reveal that he has had 

at least three such cases dismissed on the grounds that they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to 

state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The qualifying cases include: (1) Alford MorrisDay v. Obama, No. 18-cv-2706 BAS-WVG (S.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2018) (dismissed as frivolous); 

(2) Alford v. Evans, No. C 06-4314 JF (PR) (N.D. Cal. June 28, 2007) (dismissed for failure to 

state a claim); (3) Day v. Jones, C, 96-cv-3277 KMM (S.D. Fla. Dec. 18, 1996) (dismissed as 

frivolous); (4) Day v. Gomez, No. C. 96-cv-2734 WDF (S.D. Fla. Dec. 31, 1996) (dismissed as 

frivolous); and (5) Day v. Feinstein, C 96-1796 FMS (N.D. Cal. May 24, 1996) (dismissed as 

frivolous).1

In light of these dismissals, and because it does not appear that plaintiff was under 

imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the instant actions, plaintiff is 

ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing within thirty (30) days of this order, why in forma 

pauperis should not be denied and these four actions should not be dismissed pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(g). In the alternative to showing cause why the actions should not be dismissed, 

plaintiff may avoid dismissal by paying the full $400.00 filing fee by the same deadline.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 16, 2019

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

 

1 Plaintiff at times goes by the name “Morris Day.” See Case No. 18-6396 JST (PR) at ECF No. 

1. 

2 A $400.00 filing fee must be paid in each separate action that plaintiff wishes to pursue.

Case 3:18-cv-06349-JST Document 5 Filed 01/16/19 Page 3 of 3