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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
- Whether plaintiff appeared to have accumulated at least three dismissals qualifying as strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
- Whether plaintiff appeared to qualify for the imminent-danger exception to the three-strikes bar.
- 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 PDFLoading document…