DeBose v. Legislative Body of California et al

Filing 5

ORDER (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 1/3/2017) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/3/2017: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (tfS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

DONALD RAY DEBOSE,

Case No. 16-cv-05247-SI

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE.
CONTEMPLATED DISMISSAL

9
10

LEGISLATIVE BODY OF CALIFORNIA,
et al.,
Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Re: Dkt. Nos. 1, 2, 4

12
13

Donald Ray Debose, a prisoner at San Quentin State Prison, filed this pro se civil rights

14

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

15

U.S.C. § 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 this 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 Debose has filed many cases does not alone

2

warrant dismissal of the present action under § 1915(g). See id. Rather, dismissal of an action

3

under § 1915(g) should only occur when, “after careful evaluation of the order dismissing an

4

[earlier] action, and other relevant information, the district court determines that the action was

5

dismissed because it was frivolous, malicious or failed to state a claim.” Id.
Andrews requires that a prisoner be given notice of the potential applicability of § 1915(g),

7

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

8

burden of persuasion that § 1915(g) does not bar pauper status for him. Id. Andrews implicitly

9

allows the court to sua sponte raise the § 1915(g) problem, but requires the court to notify the

10

prisoner of the earlier dismissals it considers to support a § 1915(g) dismissal and allow the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

6

prisoner an opportunity to be heard on the matter before dismissing the action. See id. at 1120. A

12

dismissal under § 1915(g) means that a prisoner cannot proceed with his action as a pauper under

13

§ 1915, but he still may pursue his claims if he pays the full filing fee at the outset of the action.

14

Debose is now given notice that the court believes the following dismissals may be

15

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

16

12-4234 SI, was dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and no

17

appeal was taken. Second, Debose v. Governor Brown, N. D. Cal. Case No. C 12-6169 SI, was

18

dismissed for failure to state a claim. Third, Debose v. Ronald George, Ninth Cir. No. 13-17177

19

(which was the appeal from N. D. Cal. Case No. 12-6169 SI), was determined to be frivolous in an

20

order filed December 19, 2013, and was dismissed on January 10, 2014, when appellant failed to

21

pay the full filing fee as ordered when the appeal was found to be frivolous. The court made its

22

evaluation of these cases based on the dismissal orders and docket sheets in them. See Andrews,

23

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

24

files may need to be consulted).

25

In light of these dismissals, and because Debose does not appear to be under imminent

26

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

27

than February 10, 2017, why in forma pauperis status should not be denied and this action should

28

not be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). In the alternative to showing cause why the
2

1

action should not be dismissed, Debose may avoid dismissal by paying the full $400.00 filing fee

2

by the deadline.

3
4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 3, 2017
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3