Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-04148/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-04148-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Seavon Pierce
Plaintiff
United States Congress
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SEAVON PIERCE,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES CONGRESS,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-04148-EMC 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE. 

CONTEMPLATED DISMISSAL

Seavon Pierce, a prisoner at Kern Valley State Prison, filed this pro se civil action and has 

applied 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 the 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 “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 the prisoner has filed many cases does not 

Case 3:16-cv-04148-EMC Document 5 Filed 01/04/17 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

alone warrant dismissal of the present action under § 1915(g). See Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1121. 

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.” Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1121.

Andrews requires that a 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. Andrews, 398 F.3d at 

1121. 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. Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1120. A dismissal under § 1915(g) means that a prisoner cannot 

proceed with his action as a pauper under § 1915, but he still may pursue his claims if he pays the 

full filing fee at the outset of the action.

Mr. Pierce is now given notice that the Court believes the following dismissals may be 

counted as dismissals for purposes of § 1915(g): First, Pierce v. Gonzales, E. D. Cal. Case No. 

1:10-cv-285-JLT, was dismissed on December 3, 2012, for failure to state a claim. Second, Pierce 

v. Gonzales, Ninth Circuit Case No. 13-15114 (which was the appeal from E. D. Cal. Case No. 

1:10-cv-285-JLT), was determined to be frivolous in an order filed March 28, 2013, and was 

dismissed on May 7, 2013, when appellant failed to pay the full filing fee as ordered when the 

appeal was found to be frivolous. Third, Pierce v. California State, C. D. Cal. Case No. 2:12-cv9211-UA-CW, was dismissed on November 20, 2012, after pauper status was denied and the 

action was determined to be frivolous, malicious or failed to state a claim upon which relief may 

be granted. Fourth, Pierce v. Lancaster Warden, C. D. Cal. Case No. 2:13-cv-1939-UA-CW, was 

dismissed on March 28, 2013, after pauper status was denied and the action was determined to be 

frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Fifth, Pierce v.

Unknown, E. D. Cal. Case No. 1:15-cv-650-DAD-DLB, was dismissed on November 13, 2015, for 

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The appeal from that dismissal was 

Case 3:16-cv-04148-EMC Document 5 Filed 01/04/17 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

dismissed when the filing fee was not paid. Sixth, Pierce v. San Francisco Examiner, N. D. Cal. 

Case No. 15-cv-6051 EMC, was dismissed on May 16, 2016, for failure to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted. No appeal was taken from that dismissal. The Court made its 

evaluation of these cases based on the dismissal orders and docket sheets in them. 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 dismissals, and because Mr. Pierce 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 27, 2017, why in forma pauperis status 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 the 

action should not be dismissed, Mr. Pierce may avoid dismissal by paying the full $400.00 filing 

fee by the deadline.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2017

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-04148-EMC Document 5 Filed 01/04/17 Page 3 of 3