Weaver v. Monthly State Envelopes et al
Filing
10
ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 10/20/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(mklS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/21/2014)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
8
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
11
12
WILLIE WEAVER,
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
No. C 14-0923 RS (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
v.
MONTHLY STATE ENVELOPES,
et al.,
16
Defendants.
/
17
18
19
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights complaint under
20
42 U.S.C. § 1983. He also applied to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) under 28 U.S.C.
21
§ 1915.
22
The Court found that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) bars plaintiff from proceeding IFP in this
23
action because plaintiff (1) has had three or more prior prisoner actions dismissed by a
24
federal court on the grounds that they are frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim upon
25
which relief may be granted; and (2) does not appear to be seeking relief from a danger of
26
serious physical injury which is imminent at the time of filing. Pursuant to the law of this
27
Circuit, plaintiff nonetheless was afforded an opportunity to persuade the Court that
28
No. C 14-0923 RS (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
1
§ 1915(g) does not bar pauper status for him. Id. (citing Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113,
2
1120 (9th Cir. 2005)). The Court gave plaintiff over 80 days to show cause why § 1915(g)
3
does not bar pauper status for him, and explained that failure to file a timely response or to
4
pay the filing fee will result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice to bringing his
5
claims in a new paid complaint.
6
Plaintiff has filed a response. In it, he does not challenge specifically the Court’s
7
determination that each listed dismissed action counts as a strike under § 1915(g), nor does
8
he allege that he is in danger of serious physical injury which was imminent at the time of
9
filing. Rather, he cites general case law, none of which is applicable to the situation he faces.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
In sum, plaintiff has not shown in his response to the Court’s order to show cause, or
11
anywhere else, that § 1915(g) does not bar pauper status for him in this prisoner action.
12
Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice to plaintiff bringing his claims in a
13
new paid complaint. His motion to proceed IFP (Docket No. 5) is DENIED. The Clerk shall
14
terminate any Docket No. 5, enter judgment in favor of defendants, and close the file.
15
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 20, 2014
RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Judge
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
No. C 14-0923 RS (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
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?