Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20200110_0000095.SCA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-02-28 13:15:37
Document Index: 761138300

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1915', '§ 1914', '§ 1914', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915']

FindACase™ | Chatman v. Toyota of Escondido
ERIC CHATMAN, CDCR #BI-6355, Plaintiff,
ORDER (1) DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AS BARRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1915(G) (ECF NO. 2); AND (2) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEE REQUIRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1914(A)
Eric Chatman (“Plaintiff”), currently incarcerated at San Quentin State Prison (“SQSP”) located in San Quentin, California, and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil action in which he claims to have been raped at work at Toyota of Escondido in 1997 or 1998. (ECF No. 1, Compl.)
Plaintiff did not pay the civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) at the time he filed his Complaint; instead he filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (ECF No. 2.)
“All persons, not just prisoners, may seek IFP status.” Moore v. Maricopa Cnty. Sheriff's Office, 657 F.3d 890, 892 (9th Cir. 2011). Prisoners, like Plaintiff, however, “face an additional hurdle.” Id. In addition to requiring prisoners to “pay the full amount of a filing fee, ” in “increments” as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3)(b), Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2015), the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) amended section 1915 to preclude the privilege to proceed IFP:
“Pursuant to § 1915(g), a prisoner with three strikes or more cannot proceed IFP.” Id.; see also Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2007) (hereafter “Cervantes”) (stating that under the PLRA, “[p]risoners who have repeatedly brought unsuccessful suits may entirely be barred from IFP status under the three strikes rule . . . .”). The objective of the PLRA is to further “the congressional goal of reducing frivolous prisoner litigation in federal court.” Tierney v. Kupers, 128 F.3d 1310, 1312 (9th Cir. 1997). “[S]ection 1915(g)'s cap on prior dismissed claims applies to claims dismissed both before and after the statute's effective date.” Id. at 1311.
B. Application to Plaintiff
As an initial matter, the Court has carefully reviewed Plaintiff's Complaint and has ascertained that it does not contain “plausible allegations” which suggest he “faced ‘imminent danger of serious physical injury' at the time of filing.” Cervantes, 493 F.3d at 1055 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)). Instead, Plaintiff alleges that more than twenty years ago he was raped by his supervisor at the car dealership at which he worked. (See Compl. at 13.)
The Court takes judicial notice that Plaintiff, while incarcerated, has had at least three prior civil actions in this district alone dismissed on the grounds that they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim upon ...