Smith v. Pelican BAy State Prison Medical Staff

Filing 5

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Re Contemplated Dismissal. Show Cause Response due by 5/6/2016. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 4/11/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service). (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/11/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

KENNETH SMITH,
Plaintiff,

8

11

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE
CONTEMPLATED DISMISSAL

v.

9
10

Case No. 15-cv-05769-EMC

PELICAN BAY STATE PRISON
MEDICAL STAFF,

Docket Nos. 1, 2, 4

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

Defendant.
12
13

Kenneth Smith, a prisoner at Pelican Bay State Prison, filed this pro se civil rights action

14

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He also has applied to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

15

§ 1915.

16

A prisoner may not bring a civil action in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 “if the

17

prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought

18

an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is

19

frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner

20

is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Section 1915(g)

21

requires that the court consider prisoner actions dismissed before, as well as after, the statute's

22

1996 enactment. Tierney v. Kupers, 128 F.3d 1310, 1311-12 (9th Cir. 1997).

23

For purposes of a dismissal that may be counted under § 1915(g), the phrase “fails to state

24

a claim on which relief may be granted” parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

25

12(b)(6) and carries the same interpretation, the word “frivolous” refers to a case that is “„of little

26

weight or importance: having no basis in law or fact,‟” and the word “malicious” refers to a case

27

“filed with the „intention or desire to harm another.‟” Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th

28

Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). Only cases within one of these three categories can be counted as

1

strikes for § 1915(g) purposes, so the mere fact that the prisoner has filed many cases does not

2

alone warrant dismissal of the present action under § 1915(g). See Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1121.

3

Rather, dismissal of an action under § 1915(g) should only occur when, “after careful evaluation

4

of the order dismissing an [earlier] action, and other relevant information, the district court

5

determines that the action was dismissed because it was frivolous, malicious or failed to state a

6

claim.” Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1121.

7

Andrews requires that a prisoner be given notice of the potential applicability of § 1915(g),

8

by either the district court or the defendants, but also requires the prisoner to bear the ultimate

9

burden of persuasion that § 1915(g) does not bar pauper status for him. Andrews, 398 F.3d at

the court to notify the prisoner of the earlier dismissals it considers to support a § 1915(g)

12
For the Northern District of California

1121. Andrews implicitly allows the court to sua sponte raise the § 1915(g) problem, but requires

11

United States District Court

10

dismissal and allow the prisoner an opportunity to be heard on the matter before dismissing the

13

action. Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1120. A dismissal under § 1915(g) means that a prisoner cannot

14

proceed with his action as a pauper under § 1915, but he still may pursue his claims if he pays the

15

full filing fee at the outset of the action.

16

Mr. Smith is now given notice that the Court believes the following dismissals may be

17

counted as dismissals for purposes of § 1915(g): First, Smith v. Civil Judge, N.D. Cal. Case No. C

18

00-1428 MHP, was dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

19

Second, Smith v. Ms. Keen, N.D. Cal. Case No. C 00-1614 MHP, was dismissed for failed to state

20

a claim upon which relief may be granted. Third, Smith v. Director San Francisco Greyhound Bus

21

Dept. Station, N.D. Cal. Case No. C 09-1851 MHP, was dismissed for failure to state a claim upon

22

which relief may be granted. Fourth, Smith v. San Quentin State Prison, N.D. Cal. Case No. C 09-

23

2381 MHP, was dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The

24

Court made its evaluation of these cases based on the dismissal orders and docket sheets in them.

25

See Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1120 (sometimes the docket records may be sufficient, and sometime

26

the actual court files may need to be consulted).

27

In light of these dismissals, and because Mr. Smith does not appear to be under imminent

28

danger of serious physical injury, he is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing filed no later
2

1

than May 6, 2016 why in forma pauperis status should not be denied and this action should not be

2

dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). In the alternative to showing cause why the action

3

should not be dismissed, Mr. Smith may avoid dismissal by paying the full $400.00 filing fee by

4

the deadline.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8
9
10

Dated: April 11, 2016
______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3