Sharp v. Park

Case No. 25-cv-07431-EKL · United States District Court for the Northern District of California · November 17, 2025 · No. 25-cv-07431-EKL

Summary

The court issued an order to show cause in a pro se prisoner civil-rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. It found that the plaintiff appeared to have at least six qualifying dismissals under the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s three-strikes provision and did not appear to satisfy the imminent-danger exception. The plaintiff was ordered to show cause within 28 days, or alternatively pay the filing fee, or the action could be dismissed.

Holdings

  1. The three-strikes bar under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) is triggered by qualifying prior dismissals for frivolousness, maliciousness, or failure to state a claim, rather than by the merits of the current action.
  2. A district court may sua sponte raise a potential § 1915(g) bar, but must notify the prisoner of the prior dismissals being considered and provide an opportunity to be heard before dismissing the action on that basis.
  3. The imminent-danger exception requires a plausible allegation of imminent danger of serious physical injury existing when the complaint was filed and clearly related to the claims in the initial complaint.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether plaintiff appeared to have accumulated at least three dismissals qualifying as strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
  2. Whether plaintiff appeared to qualify for the imminent-danger exception to the three-strikes bar.
  3. Whether the court was required to notify plaintiff and provide an opportunity to contest the potential application of § 1915(g) before denying in forma pauperis status and dismissing the action.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (13)

  • El-Shaddai v. Zamora, 833 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2016)(followed)
  • Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1120-21 (9th Cir. 2005)(followed)
  • Moore v. Maricopa Cty. Sheriff's Office, 657 F.3d 890, 893-94 (9th Cir. 2011)(followed)
  • Harris v. Mangum, 863 F.3d 1133, 1143 (9th Cir. 2017)(followed)
  • Belanus v. Clark, 796 F.3d 1021, 1027-30 (9th Cir. 2015)(followed)
  • Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2015)(followed)
  • Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053, 1057 n.11 (9th Cir. 2007)(followed)
  • Sharp v. Koenig, No. 21-cv-6035 RS (N.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2022)(considered)
  • Sharp v. Commissioner John Koskinen, No. 21-cv-2171 PJH (N.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2021)(considered)
  • Sharp v. Mims, No. 13-cv-0534 AWI BAM (E.D. Cal. July 1, 2014)(considered)

Showing top 10 of 13.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…