Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07413/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07413-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gray Davis
Defendant
Edward L. Turner
Plaintiff

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD L. TURNER,

Plaintiff,

v.

GRAY DAVIS; et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-7413 MHP (pr)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE.

CONTEMPLATED DISMISSAL 

Edward L. Turner, a prisoner currently incarcerated at the state prison in Corcoran,

California, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He also

seeks 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

Case 3:06-cv-07413-MHP Document 4 Filed 12/21/06 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

"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 Turner

has filed many cases, of which none apparently were successful, 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), 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(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 Turner's prior prisoner actions in this court reveals

that Turner 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. Turner is

now given notice that the court believes the following dismissals may be counted as

dismissals for purposes of § 1915(g): (1) Turner v. Contra Costa County, N. D. Cal. Case No.

C 97-3015 MHP (civil rights action dismissed because the claims did not state a claim upon

which relief may be granted); (2) Turner v. Coleman, N. D. Cal. Case No. C 02-5731 MHP

(civil rights action dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted);

and (3) Turner v. Coleman, N. D. Cal. Case No. C 06-491 MHP (civil rights action dismissed

for failure to state a claim and because it was malicious and frivolous). The court made its

evaluation of these cases based on the dismissal orders in them. See Andrews, 398 F.3d at

Case 3:06-cv-07413-MHP Document 4 Filed 12/21/06 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

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 Turner does not appear to be under imminent

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

later than January 31, 2007 why in forma pauperis 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 this action should not be dismissed, Turner may avoid dismissal by paying the full

$350.00 filing fee by the deadline. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 21, 2006 ______________________

 Marilyn Hall Patel

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-07413-MHP Document 4 Filed 12/21/06 Page 3 of 3