Barger v. Director of OPS of CDCR et al

Filing 9

ORDER DISMISSING Action, Without Prejudice, Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(g) and DENYING Pending Motions as Moot, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 3/4/2015. CASE CLOSED. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
GARY DALE BARGER aka
GARY FRANCIS FISHER,

10
11

Plaintiff,
12
v.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00338-LJO-SKO (PC)
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION, WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §
1915(G) AND DENYING PENDING
MOTIONS AS MOOT

13
DIRECTOR OF OPS OF CDCR, et al.,

(Docs. 1-4)

14
Defendants.
15
_____________________________________/
16
Plaintiff Gary Dale Barger aka Gary Francis Fisher, # F85263, a state prisoner proceeding

17

18 pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on February 24, 2015, in the
19 Northern District of California. The action was transferred to this court on February 26, 2015.
Plaintiff is subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which provides that “[i]n no event shall a

20

21 prisoner bring a civil action . . . under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions,
22 while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United
23 States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim
24 upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious
1
25 physical injury.”

26
27
28

1

Plaintiff has at least three dismissals which qualify as final strikes under section 1915(g). Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658
F.3d 1090, 1098-99 (9th Cir. 2011). The Court takes judicial notice of the following United States District Court
cases: Barger aka Fisher v. FBI, et al., 1:13-cv-00414-LJO-SAB (E.D.Cal.) (dismissed for failure to state a claim on
Jul. 26, 2013); Barger aka Fisher v. FBI, et al., 1:13-cv-00535-DLB (E.D.Cal.) (dismissed for failure to state a claim

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint and his allegations do not satisfy the

1

2 imminent danger exception to section 1915(g).2 Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1055-56
3 (9th Cir. 2007). If Plaintiff wishes to pursue this action, he must first pay the $400.00 filing fee.
4

Accordingly, this action is HEREBY ORDERED DISMISSED, without prejudice to re-

5 filing accompanied by the $400.00 filing fee, and Plaintiff’s pending motions are DENIED as
6 moot.
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

9

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

March 4, 2015

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

on Nov. 21, 2013); and Fisher v. Bivens, 6 Unknown Agents, et al., 2:14-cv-01439-UA(MAN) (C.D.Cal.) (dismissed
for failure to state a claim on Mar. 6, 2014).
2

Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at the California Health Care Facility in Stockton. Plaintiff alleges that he was
released on parole on October 5, 2010, and an officer subsequently slammed him against the glass at a Greyhound
station. Plaintiff alleges he only drank one beer, which is not against the law, and the officer failed to give him a field
sobriety test. Plaintiff was then sent back to prison.

2