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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?