Charles Reginald Cooks v. Los Angeles County Jails Leroy Baca et al

Filing 7

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym: Order to Show Cause Why IFP Status Should Not Be Revoked and Complaint Dismissed Under PLRA's Three Strikes Provision. Within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this Order, that is, by February 25, 2015, plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing (SEE MINUTES FOR DETAILS). (kca)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 15-48-BRO (SP)

Title

CHARLES REGINALD COOKS v. LEROY BACA, et al.

Present: The Honorable

Date

February 4, 2015

Sheri Pym, United States Magistrate Judge

Kimberly I. Carter

None

None

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:

Attorneys Present for Defendant:

None Present

None Present

Proceedings:

(In Chambers) Order to Show Cause Why IFP Status Should Not Be
Revoked and Complaint Dismissed Under PLRA's Three Strikes
Provision

On January 5, 2015, plaintiff Charles Reginald Cooks, a California prisoner
proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff
did not pay the required filing fee, but instead filed a Request to Proceed Without
Prepayment of Filing Fees (“IFP Request”), which the court granted on January 9, 2015.
After further review, it appears that plaintiff’s IFP request should not have been
granted because plaintiff is prohibited from proceeding in forma pauperis (“IFP”) under
the “three strikes” provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). The three
strikes provision states: “In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action . . . under this
section [pertaining to proceedings in forma pauperis] 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).
This court’s records show that plaintiff has had at least four prior civil actions
dismissed at the IFP stage by this court as frivolous or for failure to state a claim. See
Nos. CV 11-8437-UA (SP), CV 12-387-UA (SP), CV 13-4364-UA (SP), CV 14-531-UA
(SP); see also O’Neal v. Price, 531 F.3d 1146, 1153 (9th Cir. 2008) (IFP application
denied on ground claim is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim counts as a strike
under § 1915(g)). As there is no indication plaintiff is under imminent danger of serious
physical injury, it appears he may not proceed IFP due to his four prior “strikes.”
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 15-48-BRO (SP)

Date

Title

February 4, 2015

CHARLES REGINALD COOKS v. LEROY BACA, et al.

The court will not revoke plaintiff’s IFP status and dismiss the complaint,
however, without first giving plaintiff an opportunity to respond. Accordingly, within
twenty-one (21) days of the date of this Order, that is, by February 25, 2015, plaintiff is
ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing, why plaintiff’s IFP status should not be
revoked under the three strikes provision of the PLRA, and his complaint therefore
dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee. Plaintiff is cautioned that his failure to timely
file a response to this Order to Show Cause will be deemed by the court as consent to the
revocation of his IFP status and dismissal of this action.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2