Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02677/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02677-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Deuel Vocational Institution
Defendant
Willie Weaver
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIE WEAVER, No. 2:12-CV-2677-MCE-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

DEUEL VOCATIONAL

INSTITUTION,

Defendant.

 /

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

The PLRA’s “three strikes” provision, found at 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), provides as

follows:

In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action . . . under this

section if the prisoner has, on three or more prior occasions, while

incarcerated or detained . . ., brought an action . . . in a court of the United

States that was dismissed on the ground 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.

Id.

1

Case 2:12-cv-02677-MCE-CMK Document 5 Filed 01/03/13 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

Thus, when a prisoner plaintiff has had three or more prior actions dismissed for one of the

reasons set forth in the statute, such “strikes” preclude the prisoner from proceeding in forma

pauperis unless the imminent danger exception applies. Dismissed habeas petitions do not count

as “strikes” under § 1915(g). See Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2005). 

Where, however, a dismissed habeas action was merely a disguised civil rights action, the district

court may conclude that it counts as a “strike.” See id. at n.12.

A review of the court’s records reflects that plaintiff has had three or more cases

dismissed as “strikes” under § 1915(g). Three such cases are: Weaver v. Tehachapi 1

Confinement SHU, 1:06-CV-0341-AWI-LJO-P; Weaver v. California Correctional Institution,

1:06-CV-0863-OWW-SMS-P; and Weaver v. California Correctional Institution, 1:06-CV-1205-

AWI-SMS-P. Because plaintiff has had three or more cases dismissed as “strikes,” and because

a review of the complaint does not suggest the applicability of an exception, he cannot proceed

without pre-payment of the statutory filing fees. 

When in forma pauperis status is denied, revoked, or otherwise unavailable under

§ 1915(g), the proper course of action is to dismiss the action without prejudice to re-filing the

action upon pre-payment of fees at the time the action is re-filed. In Tierney v. Kupers, the Ninth

Circuit reviewed a district court’s screening stage dismissal of a prisoner civil rights action after

finding under § 1915(g) that the plaintiff was not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis. See 128

F.3d 1310 (9th Cir. 1998). Notably, the district court dismissed the entire action rather than

simply providing the plaintiff an opportunity to pay the filing fee. The Ninth Circuit held that the

plaintiff’s case was “properly dismissed.” Id. at 1311. Similarly, in Rodriguez v. Cook, the

Ninth Circuit dismissed an inmate’s appeal in a prisoner civil rights action because it concluded

The court may take judicial notice pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201 of 1

matters of public record. See U.S. v. 14.02 Acres of Land, 530 F.3d 883, 894 (9th Cir. 2008). 

Thus, this court may take judicial notice of state court records, see Kasey v. Molybdenum Corp.

of America, 336 F.2d 560, 563 (9th Cir. 1964), as well as its own records, see Chandler v. U.S.,

378 F.2d 906, 909 (9th Cir. 1967). 

2

Case 2:12-cv-02677-MCE-CMK Document 5 Filed 01/03/13 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

that he was not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal pursuant to the “three strikes”

provision. See 169 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 1999). Again, rather than providing the inmate appellant

an opportunity to pay the filing fee, the court dismissed the appeal without prejudice and stated

that the appellant “may resume this appeal upon prepaying the filing fee.” 

This conclusion is consistent with the conclusions reached in at least three other

circuits. In Dupree v. Palmer, the Eleventh Circuit held that denial of in forma pauperis status

under § 1915(g) mandated dismissal. See 284 F.3d 1234 (11th Cir. 2002). The court specifically

held that “the prisoner cannot simply pay the filing fee after being denied IFP status” because

“[h]e must pay the filing fee at the time he initiates the suit.” Id. at 1236 (emphasis in original). 

The Fifth and Sixth Circuits follow the same rule. See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383

(5th Cir. 1996); In re Alea, 86 F.3d 378 (6th Cir. 2002). 

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that this action be dismissed

without prejudice to re-filing upon pre-payment of the filing fees. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of

objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. 

See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: January 3, 2013

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 2:12-cv-02677-MCE-CMK Document 5 Filed 01/03/13 Page 3 of 3