Berringer v. Meza et al

Filing 4

ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 3/26/12. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/26/2012)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7

OAKLAND DIVISION

8

ANTHONY S. BERRINGER,

9

Plaintiff,
v.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C 12-0021 PJH (PR)

F. MEZA, et al.,

12

ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO
SHOW CAUSE
Defendants.
/

13
14

This is a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 filed by a state

15

prisoner. A prisoner plaintiff, such as plaintiff here, may not bring a civil action or appeal a

16

civil judgment in forma pauperis "if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while

17

incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United

18

States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a

19

claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of

20

serious physical injury." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). "Section 1915(g)'s cap on prior dismissed

21

claims applies to claims dismissed both before and after the [PLRA's] effective date."

22

Tierney v. Kupers, 128 F.3d 1310, 1312 (9th Cir 1997).

23

It appears that plaintiff has had at least four cases previously dismissed as frivolous,

24

malicious, or for failure to state a claim. These are: Berringer v. Salinas Valley State

25

Prison, C 06-0270 CW (PR) (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2008 (dismissal for failure to state a claim);

26

Berringer v. Salinas Valley State Prison Kitchen Staff, C 06-2839 CW (PR) (N.D. Cal. Nov.

27

1, 2006) (dismissing duplicative complaint as abusive); Berringer v. Chaverine, C 06-5832

28

CW (PR) (N.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2006) (dismissing duplicative complaint as abusive); Berringer

1

v. California Department of Corrections, C 07-3353 (N.D. Cal. July 13, 2007) (dismissing

2

duplicative complaint as abusive).

3

Plaintiff shall show cause within thirty days of the date this order is served why leave

4

to proceed IFP should not be denied because of the “strikes” identified above. If he does

5

not respond or is unable to demonstrate that two or more of the cases listed above should

6

not be considered strikes, leave to proceed in forma pauperis will be denied.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 26, 2012.
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
G:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.12\BERRINGER0021.OSC-P.wpd

2