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)

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