Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00509/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00509-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John/Jane Does
Respondent
James E. Smith
Petitioner

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

JAMES E. SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN/JANE DOES, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-00509-LJO-SMS

APPEAL NO. 07-16055

NOTICE AND ORDER FINDING THAT

PLAINTIFF IS NOT ENTITLED TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON THE

APPEAL FILED MAY 24, 2007

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK’S OFFICE

TO SERVE COPY OF ORDER ON NINTH

CIRCUIT

Plaintiff James E. Smith (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner who was proceeding pro se in this

civil action. On May 4, 2007, the Court dismissed this action, with prejudice, as frivolous and

malicious, and for failure to state a claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. (Doc. 7.) Plaintiff filed a notice of

appeal on May 24, 2007. (Doc. 9.)

Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, 

The district clerk must immediately notify the parties and the court of appeals when

the district court does any of the following:

(A) denies a motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis;

(B) certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith; or

(C) finds that the party is not otherwise entitled to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(4). For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that plaintiff is not entitled

to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.

28 U.S.C. § 1915 governs proceedings in forma pauperis. Section 1915(g) provides that “[i]n

no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action . . . under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more

Case 1:07-cv-00509-LJO -SMS Document 18 Filed 06/21/07 Page 1 of 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

 Among the dismissals suffered by plaintiff that count as strikes under 1915(g) are case numbers 3:06-cv- 1

05992-SI Smith v. Holm (N.D. Cal.) (dismissed 01/22/2007 for failure to state a claim); 1:07-cv-00509-LJO-SMS

Smith v. Scribner (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed 05/04/2007 for frivolousness, maliciousness, and failure to state a claim);

1:06-cv-00310-AWI-NEW (DLB) PC (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed 05/09/2007 for failure to state a claim); and 1:07-cv00531-AWI-SMS Smith v. Social Sec. Admin. Office, Employees (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed 05/09/2007 for failure to

state a claim).

2

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.” Plaintiff became subject to section 1915(g) on May 9, 2007, when his third action

was dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Because plaintiff is

1

subject to section 1915(g) and has made no showing that he is “under imminent threat of serious

physical injury,” id., plaintiff’s is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, Fed. R. App.

P. 24(a)(4)(C).

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), plaintiff is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis

on the appeal filed on May 24, 2007;

2. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(4)(C), this order serves as

notice to plaintiff and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit of the

finding that plaintiff is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis for this appeal; and

3. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order on plaintiff and the United

States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 20, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00509-LJO -SMS Document 18 Filed 06/21/07 Page 2 of 2