Law v. Gooden et al

Filing 6

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Show Cause Response due by 10/11/2016. Signed by Judge Nandor J. Vadas on 9/19/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(njvlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/19/2016)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 EUREKA DIVISON 7 8 CARLOS GILBERT LAW, Case No. 16-cv-4977-NJV (PR) Plaintiff, 9 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE v. 10 11 DEPUTY GOODEN, et. al., United States District Court Northern District of California Defendants. 12 13 14 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 15 Plaintiff has also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff alleges that he was 16 assaulted on December 4, 2015, while at San Francisco County Jail. He is now incarcerated at the 17 California Medical Facility. 18 The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”), enacted April 26, 1996, provides 19 that a prisoner may not bring a civil action or appeal a civil judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 “if 20 the prisoner has, on three or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, 21 brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that 22 it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the 23 prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The phrase 24 “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” as used in § 1915(g), “parallels the 25 language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 26 (9th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). A case is “frivolous” within the meaning of § 27 1915(g) if “it is of little weight or importance: having no basis in law or fact.” Id. (internal 28 quotation marks omitted). Further, because § 1915(g) is a procedural rule that does not raise 1 retroactivity concerns, cases dismissed before the effective date of § 1915(g) may be counted as 2 qualifying dismissals or “strikes.” See Tierney v. Kupers, 128 F.3d 1310, 1311-12 (9th Cir. 1997). 3 A dismissal under § 1915(g) means that a prisoner cannot proceed with his action as a pauper 4 under § 1915(g), but he still may pursue his claim if he pays the full filing fee at the outset of the 5 action. 6 It appears that plaintiff has at least four strikes pursuant to § 1915(g): 7 - Law v. Benitez, No. 06-1061 OWW LJO (E.D. Cal.) Docket Nos. 10, 11. 8 - Law v. Green, No. 07-1071 LJO DLB (E.D. Cal.) Docket Nos. 8, 10. 9 - Law v. Miller, No. 11-1339 LJO SKO (E.D. Cal.) Docket Nos. 13, 14. - Law v. Domico, No. 10-2225 BAM (E.D. Cal.) Docket Nos. 18, 19. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 Plaintiff shall show cause within twenty-one (21) days, why this case should not be 12 deemed three strikes barred and the application to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Failure to 13 reply will result in dismissal. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 19, 2016 ________________________ NANDOR J. VADAS United States Magistrate Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?