Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04285/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04285-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Connsero
Plaintiff
Mike Evans
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

MICHAEL CONNSERO, 

Plaintiff,

 vs.

CAPTAIN B. RANKIN, et al,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-4285 JSW (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE

DISMISSED UNDER 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915 (g)

(Docket No. 3) 

INTRODUCTION

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, which though largely incomprehensible, seems directed

at challenging the use of excessive force by prison officials. Plaintiff has also

filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (docket no. 3). In this order, the

Court orders Plaintiff to show cause why the complaint should not be dismissed

based on 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), as set forth below.

DISCUSSION

I Standard of Review

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which

prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a

governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must identify cognizable

Case 3:07-cv-04285-JSW Document 4 Filed 12/17/07 Page 1 of 5
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

claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint

"is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted," or "seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such

relief." Id. § 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed, however. 

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two

elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States

was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting

under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

II P.L.R.A.

Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“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). 

The Ninth Circuit has recently considered the requirements for a dismissal

under the PLRA. 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

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

Case 3:07-cv-04285-JSW Document 4 Filed 12/17/07 Page 2 of 5
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

that Plaintiff has filed many prior cases 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 Plaintiff's prior prisoner actions reveals

that he 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 is now given notice that this Court believes the following dismissals may

be counted as dismissals for purposes of § 1915(g): (1) Connsero v. Duncan, No.

1:01-cv-05626-OWW-DLB (E.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2002) (order of dismissal for

failure to state a claim); (2) Connsero v. Roe, No. 2:03-cv-01184-UA-AJW (C.D.

Cal. Mar. 3, 2003) (order of dismissal for failure to complete in forma pauperis 

application and for failure to state a federal claim for relief); (3) Connsero v.

Duncan, No. 1:02-cv-05863-REC-HGB (E.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2003) (order of

dismissal for failure to state a claim); (4) Connsero v. Knowles, No. 2:04-cvCase 3:07-cv-04285-JSW Document 4 Filed 12/17/07 Page 3 of 5
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 4

00494-FCD-PAN (N.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2004) (order of dismissal for failure to

state a claim). This Court made its evaluation of these cases based on reviewing

the dismissal orders in each of 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 it does not appear that Plaintiff

alleges he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury, he 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). Failure to do so will result in the dismissal of this action without

prejudice for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. See Malone v. United States Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 133 (9th Cir.

1987) (a court should afford the litigant prior notice before dismissing for failure

to prosecute). 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. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 17, 2007 JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge 

Case 3:07-cv-04285-JSW Document 4 Filed 12/17/07 Page 4 of 5
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

MICHAEL CONNSERO,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MIKE EVANS et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV07-04285 JSW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on December 17, 2007, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing

said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office

delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Michael Connsero H-04102

Salinas Valley Prison

P.O. Box 1050

Soledad, CA 93960-1050

Dated: December 17, 2007

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk

Case 3:07-cv-04285-JSW Document 4 Filed 12/17/07 Page 5 of 5