Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03929/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03929-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lonzell Green
Plaintiff
Thomas J. Orloff
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LONZELL GREEN, 

Plaintiff,

 vs.

THOMAS J. ORLOFF, et al, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-3929 TEH (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE

DISMISSED UNDER 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915 (g)

(Docket No. 2)

Plaintiff, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at Salinas Valley State

Prison and a frequent litigant in the federal courts, has filed a pro se complaint

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaining about “a criminal pattern of failing to

adequately investigate citizens complaint [sic] against the State of California

Police officials.” Plaintiff has also filed a motion seeking to proceed in forma

pauperis (docket no. 2).

Under the PLRA, a prisoner may not bring a civil action or appeal a civil

judgment 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); Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2005). For purposes

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

Case 3:07-cv-03929-TEH Document 4 Filed 12/03/07 Page 1 of 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 2

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.'" Id. at 1121 (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 hundreds of cases and appeals does not alone 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). 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(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 before

this Court reveals that Plaintiff has had at least three such cases dismissed on the

ground that they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted. Plaintiff has also been previously denied in forma

pauperis status by this Court under § 1915(g). See Green v. Dept. of Corrections,

Case 04-cv-5288 TEH (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2004) (order of dismissal). Plaintiff is

Case 3:07-cv-03929-TEH Document 4 Filed 12/03/07 Page 2 of 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 3

now given notice that based on the Court’s observation of the orders in these

earlier cases, the Court finds the following dismissals constitute applicable

dismissals under § 1915(g): (1) Green v. City of Oakland, Case No. 3:02 -cv05232 TEH (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2002) (order of dismissal for failure to state a

claim); (2) Green v. Hammond, Case No. 3:02-cv-04817-TEH (N.D. Cal. Dec.

17, 2002) (order of dismissal for failure to state a claim); and (3) Green v.

Goodman, Case No. 3:07-cv-02022-TEH (N. D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2007) (order of

dismissal for failure to state a claim). 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 orders, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in

writing filed no later than thirty (30) days from the date of this order why this

action should not be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff has not

alleged that his complaint is exempt from the requirements of § 1915(g) on the

grounds that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury as a result of the

allegations in the complaint. In the alternative to showing cause why this action

should not be dismissed, Plaintiff may avoid dismissal by paying the full $350.00

filing fee by the deadline. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: 11/29/07 THELTON E. HENDERSON

United States District Judge 

Case 3:07-cv-03929-TEH Document 4 Filed 12/03/07 Page 3 of 3