Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01707/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01707-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Fresno Superior Court
Defendant
Johnney Ramey
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHNNEY RAMEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

FRESNO SUPERIOR COURT,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 06 1707 AWI SMS P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

THAT MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS BE DENIED AND PLAINTIFF BE

REQUIRED TO PAY FILING FEE (Doc. 4.) 

Johnney Ramey (“Plaintiff”), an inmate currently incarcerated at Folsom State Prison,

Folsom, California, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the instant action on November 27, 2006. Plaintiff alleges

that the Superior Court wrongfully dismissed his case and also that certain assaults against him

took place while he was confined at Pleasant Valley State Prison. (Complaint at 4.) Plaintiff is

seeking declaratory and monetary relief. 

A. IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS

Section 1915 of Title 28 of the United States Code allows certain litigants to pursue civil

litigation without the full prepayment of costs and fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). The Prison

Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), however, amended Section 1915 to preclude the privilege of

Case 1:06-cv-01707-AWI -SMS Document 5 Filed 02/01/07 Page 1 of 4
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

The Ninth Circuit has held that Section 1915(g) does not violate a prisoner’s right of access to the courts, 1

due process or equal protection; nor does it violate separation of powers principles or operate as an ex post facto law. 

Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1179-82 (9 Cir. 1999); see also Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1123 (nothing th

constitutionality of § 1915(g), but recognizing that “serious constitutional concerns would arise of § 1915(g) were

applied to preclude those prisoners who filed actions who were not ‘frivolous, malicious, or fail[ing] to state a claim’

from proceeding IFP.”

2

proceeding 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.” 28 U.S.C.§ 1915(g). “This subdivision is commonly known as the ‘three strikes’

provision.” Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 116 n.1 (9 Cir. 2005). “Pursuant to § 1915(g), a th

prisoner with three strikes cannot proceed IFP.” Id. 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 (9 Cir. 1997.) th

“‘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 fail[ed] to state a claim.” 

Andrews, 398 F.3d 1t 116 n.1. Thus, once a prisoner has accumulated three strikes, he is

prohibited by Section 1915(g) from pursuing any other action in forma pauperis in federal court

unless he is in “imminent danger of serious physical injury.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

1

The PLRA does not require a prisoner to demonstrate that § 1915(g) does not bar his

request to proceed IFP. Andrews, 398 F.3d at 119. In some instances “the district court docket

records may be sufficient to show that a prior dismissal satisfies at least one fo the criteria under

§ 1915(g) and therefore counts as a strike.” Id. at 1120. When applying 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) the

court must “conduct a careful evaluation of the order dismissing an action, and other relevant

information,” before determining that the action “was dismissed because it was frivolous,

malicious or failed to state a claim,” since “not all unsuccessful cases qualify as a strike under

§1915(g).” Id. at 1121.

B. APPLICATION OF 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that Plaintiff has alleged no facts that show he is

Case 1:06-cv-01707-AWI -SMS Document 5 Filed 02/01/07 Page 2 of 4
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

in imminent injury of serious physical injury. See, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Rodriguez v. Cook, 169

F 3d. 1176, 1178 (9 Cir. 1999.) Plaintiff may not proceed in forma pauperis under Section 1915 th

if he has, on three prior occasions while incarcerated, had federal civil actions or appeals

dismissed as frivolous, malicious or for failing to state a claim. See, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g);

Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1119-20; Rodriguez, 169 F.3d at 1178. 

In addition, “a court 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.” United States ex rel. Robingson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d

244, 248 (9 Cir. 1992). th

Here, the Court takes judicial notice of the following civil actions filed by Plaintiff and

dismissed in this Court which qualify as strikes under the PLRA: CV-F-98-5450 AWI DLB P

Ramey v. County of Fresno (dismissed on August 20, 1998 for failure to state a claim);

CV-F-97-6215 OWW DLB P, Ramey v. Sylvester (Defendants’ motion for judgment on the

pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) granted on March 29, 1999; motion

not treated as a motion for summary judgment); CV-F-98-6327 OWW SMS P Ramey v. Loo

(dismissed on May 25, 1999 for failure to state a claim); and CV-F-02-6287 OWW SMS P,

Ramey v. Mackin (dismissed for failure to state a claim on September 2, 2005.) All of the above

dismissals occurred prior to the initiation of the instant suit on November 27, 2006. 

Accordingly, because Plaintiff has, while incarcerated and prior to the initiation of this

action, accumulated three “strikes” pursuant to § 1915(g), and does not presently allege facts

sufficient to show that he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury, the Court

RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis be DENIED and that

Plaintiff be required to pay the filing fee of $350.00 in full before he can proceed with this action.

C. RECOMMENDATION 

Based on the above, the Court finds that Plaintiff has suffered three or more dismissals

within the meaning of Section 1915(g) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. In addition, the

Court has examined the Complaint finds that the case presents no facts from which an inference

can be drawn that Plaintiff is under any continuing or imminent danger of serious physical injury

Case 1:06-cv-01707-AWI -SMS Document 5 Filed 02/01/07 Page 3 of 4
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

at the time the action was filed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Tierney v. Kupers, 128 F.3d 1310, 1311

(9th Cir.1997). Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS: 

1. That the Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis be DENIED;

2. That Plaintiff be required to tender the filing fee of $350.00 within TEN (10) days

of the date the District Court issues its Order if that Order denies Plaintiff’s

Application to Proceed In Forma Paupers. 

The Court FURTHER ORDERS that these Findings and Recommendations be submitted

to the United States District Court Judge assigned to this action pursuant to the provisions of 28

U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States

District Court, Eastern District of California. Within TWENTY (20) days after being served

with a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, any party may file written Objections with

the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Replies to the Objections shall be served

and filed within TEN (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the

Objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file Objections within the specified time

may waive the right to appeal the Order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153

(9 Cir. 1991). th

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 31, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01707-AWI -SMS Document 5 Filed 02/01/07 Page 4 of 4