Coleman v. San Mateo County et al
Filing
6
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge Hon. Lucy H. Koh on 2/24/2016. (sms, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/25/2016)
1·
2
FILED
3
FEB '5 2016
4
SUSAN Y. SOONG
CLEAK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
SAN JOSE
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
TERRY RAY COLEMAN,
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
15
v.
SAN MATEO COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. C 15-4758 LHK (PR)
ORDER DENYING MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN
FORMA PAUPERIS; ORDER
OF DISMISSAL
16
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding prose, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42
17
U.S.C. § 1983 seeking damages for alleged civil rights violations. Plaintiff also filed a motion
18
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"). On January 7, 2016, the court issued an order to
19
plaintiffto show cause why plaintiffs motion to proceed IFP should not be denied, and the case
20
dismissed, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The court also notified plaintiff that, alternatively,
21
he could pay the $400.00 to avoid dismissal. Plaintiff has not filed a response. For the reasons
22
stated below, the court DENIES plaintiffs motion for leave to proceed IFP, and DISMISSES
23
this case without prejudice.
24
DISCUSSION
25
The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 was enacted, and became effective, on April
26
26, 1996. It provides that a prisoner may not bring a civil action IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 "if
27
the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility,
28
Order Denying Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis; Order of Dismissal
P:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR.15\Coleman758disl915.wpd
1
brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that
2
it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the
3
prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
4
For purposes of a dismissal that may be counted under section 1915(g), the phrase "fails
5
to state a claim on which relief may be granted" parallels the language ofFederal Rule of Civil
6
Procedure 12(b)(6) and carries the same interpretation, the word "frivolous" refers to a case that
7
is "of little weight or importance: having no basis in law or fact," and the word "malicious"
8
refers to a case "filed with the 'intention or desire to harm another."' Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d
9
1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). Only cases within one of these three categories
10
can be counted as strikes for section 1915(g) purposes. See id Dismissal of an action under
11
section 1915(g) should only occur when, "after careful evaluation of the order dismissing an
12
[earlier] action, and other relevant information, the district court determines that the action was
13
dismissed because it was frivolous, malicious or failed to state a claim." Id
14
The court previously notified plaintiff that plaintiff has had at least three prior prisoner
15
actions that were dismissed on the ground that they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a
16
claim upon which relief may be granted. The following federal district court dismissals may be
17
counted as dismissals for purposes of section 1915(g): (1) Coleman v. County ofSan Mateo, No.
18
13-0474 LHK (pr) (N.D. Cal. dismissed April11, 2013) (dismissed for failure to state a claim);
19
(2) Coleman v. Ulshoeffer, No. 11-6290 LHK (pr) (N.D. Cal. dismissed May 23, 2012)
20
(dismissed with leave to amend for failure to state a claim, and ultimately dismissed without
21
filing an amended complaint); and (3) Coleman v. County of San Mateo, No. 11-5728 LHK (pr)
22
(N.D. Cal. dismissed May 23, 2012) (same). Plaintiff has not objected to, or otherwise refuted,
23
that the above-referenced dismissals are "strikes" for purposes of section 1915(g).
24
Despite having had three strikes pursuant to section 1915(g), plaintiff may still be able to
25
proceed IFP if he can show that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. Plaintiff has
26
the burden of proving that he satisfies this exception to section 1915(g) by demonstrating that he
27
is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. The plain language of the imminent danger
28
clause in section 1915(g) indicates that "imminent danger" is to be assessed at the time ofthe
Order Denying Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis; Order of Dismissal
2
P:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR.l5\Coleman758disl915.wpd
1
filing ofthe complaint. See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2007)
2
("Andrews IF'). The conditions that existed at some earlier or later time are not relevant. See id.
3
and n.5. The court "should not make an overly detailed inquiry into whether the allegations
4
qualifY for the exception." !d. at 1055. It is sufficient if the complaint "makes a plausible
5
allegation that the prisoner faced 'imminent danger of serious physical injury' at the time of
6
filing." !d.; see, e.g., id. at 1055 (allegation that plaintiffwas at risk of contracting HIV or
7
hepatitis C was sufficient to bring his complaint within the imminent danger exception); cf
8
Medberry v. Butler, 185 F.3d 1189, 1193 (lith Cir. 1999) (no ongoing danger where plaintiff
9
had been placed in administrative segregation following physical assaults by fellow inmates and
10
before he filed his complaint). In this circuit, "requiring a prisoner to allege[] an ongoing danger
11
-the standard adopted by the Eighth Circuit- is the most sensible way to interpret the
12
imminency requirement." Andrews II, 493 F.3d at 1056 (internal quotation marks omitted).
13
Here, plaintiff has not suggested that he was under imminent danger of serious physical
14
injury. Thus, he has not satisfied his burden to show that he is entitled to the exception to
15
section 1915(g). In addition, the court has reviewed plaintiffs complaint, and nothing in the
16
complaint suggests that plaintiff faced any "ongoing danger" of serious physical injury sufficient
17
to "meet the imminence prong of the three-strikes exception" at the time plaintiff filed his
18
complaint. !d. at 1057. Accordingly, plaintiffhas not shown that he is entitled to the imminent
19
danger exception under section 1915(g) to avoid dismissal without prejudice.
20
21
22
CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs motion to proceed IFP is DENIED. Because plaintiff has not paid the $400.00
filing fee, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice.
23
The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions and close the file.
24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
25
26
DATED:
~~2.f/WIIo
I
I
United States District Judge
27
28
Order Denying Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis; Order of Dismissal
3
P:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR.I5\Coleman758disl915.wpd
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?