Barth v. Serintero et al
Filing
17
ORDER OF DISMISSAL. This federal civil rights action is DISMISSED without prejudice to Barth bringing his claims in a new paid complaint. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 07/19/2021. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/19/2021)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)
Case 3:20-cv-05137-WHO Document 17 Filed 07/19/21 Page 1 of 3
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
SHAWN DAMON BARTH,
Plaintiff,
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Case No. 20-cv-05137-WHO (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
v.
SERINTENO, et al.,
Defendants.
12
13
14
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Shawn Damon Barth is barred from bringing this action in forma pauperis
15
because he has filed three or more federal actions that were dismissed as frivolous,
16
malicious, or on grounds that they failed to state a claim for relief. He was ordered to
17
show cause why the action should not be dismissed, but he has not filed any response to
18
the order. Accordingly, this federal civil rights action is DISMISSED without prejudice to
19
Barth bringing his claims in a new paid complaint.
20
21
BACKGROUND
Barth, a state prisoner and frequent litigant in federal court, filed this federal civil
22
rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 along with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis
23
(IFP) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The original complaint was dismissed with leave to amend,
24
and Barth’s motion to proceed IFP was granted. (Dkt. Nos. 9 and 10.) After he filed an
25
amended complaint, I learned that he may not be entitled to IFP status under § 1915
26
because he has brought three or more lawsuits that were frivolous, malicious or failed to
27
state a claim on which relief could be granted.
28
Case 3:20-cv-05137-WHO Document 17 Filed 07/19/21 Page 2 of 3
Barth was ordered to show cause why the action should not be dismissed under 28
1
U.S.C. § 1915(g), which provides that a prisoner may not bring a civil action IFP “if the
3
prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility,
4
brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the
5
grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
6
granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” (Order
7
to Show Cause, Dkt. No. 16 at 1.) The order identified three prior federal court actions
8
(“strikes”) that appeared to count under section 1915(g) and allowed plaintiff an
9
opportunity to respond, as required by Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2005).
10
The order also informed Barth he could avoid dismissal by paying the filing fee by the
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
2
deadline.
The strikes identified were:
12
13
(1) Barth v. Beard (Beard), No. 2:16-cv-01469-DMG-RAO (C.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2019)
14
(complaint dismissed by a district judge upon the recommendation of a magistrate
15
judge,1 because plaintiff failed to state a claim, and additionally one of his four
16
claims was Heck-barred on the face of the complaint, and two defendants were
17
entitled to sovereign immunity on the face of the complaint);
(2) Barth v. Kernan (Kernan), No. 2:18-cv-04763-DMG-RAO (C.D. Cal. Sept. 10,
18
19
2018) (complaint dismissed with leave to amend because plaintiff failed to state a
20
claim, one of his four claims was additionally Heck-barred on the face of the
21
complaint, and defendants were entitled to sovereign immunity on the face of the
22
complaint; ultimately dismissed because plaintiff failed to cure any defect upon
23
amendment); and
(3) Barth v. Muniz (Muniz), No. 3:18-cv-01242-WHO (N.D. Cal. May 31, 2019)
24
(amended complaint dismissed for failure to state a claim and because allegations
25
26
27
28
1
That a magistrate judge, rather than a district judge, issued the order is of no moment. See
Hoffmann v. Pulido, 928 F.3d 1147, 1150-51 (9th Cir. 2019) (holding that a dismissal
without prejudice by a magistrate judge, issued before the defendant filed a consent to
magistrate jurisdiction, is still a strike under the PLRA.)
2
Case 3:20-cv-05137-WHO Document 17 Filed 07/19/21 Page 3 of 3
1
were prolix; suit ultimately dismissed after plaintiff failed to cure any defect upon
2
amendment).2
DISCUSSION
3
Barth has not filed any response to the Order to Show Cause. Therefore, Barth has
4
5
not shown any reason that the restrictions of section 1915(g) should not be imposed. He
6
has failed to (i) pay the filing fee; (ii) show that any of the strikes do not qualify under
7
section 1915(g); (iii) show that he qualifies for the imminent danger exception; or (iv)
8
otherwise show cause why this action should not be dismissed.
Barth’s IFP status is REVOKED. This civil rights action will be dismissed.
9
CONCLUSION
10
This federal civil rights action is DISMISSED without prejudice to Barth bringing
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
his claims in a new paid complaint. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of defendants,
13
and close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
14
15
Dated: July 19, 2021
_________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The Court’s dismissal was upheld on appeal: “The district court did not abuse its
discretion in dismissing Barth’s action without prejudice because Barth failed to comply
with the district court’s orders to file an amended complaint that alleged a closely related
set of claims, despite multiple warnings to comply with federal pleading and joinder
requirements.” Barth v. Muniz, No. 3:18-cv-01242-WHO, USCA Memorandum, Dkt. No.
29 at 2.)
2
3
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?