Chatman v. Toyota of Escondido

Filing 3

ORDER : (1) Denying Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis As Barred by 28 U.S.C. 1915(g)(ECF No. #2 ); and (2) Dismissing Civil Action Without Prejudice for Failure to Pay Filing Fee Required by 28 U.S.C. 1914(a). Signed by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on 1/10/2020. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(anh)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

ERIC CHATMAN,
CDCR #BI-6355,

Case No.: 3:20-cv-00041-CAB-LL
ORDER:

13
14

Plaintiff,

(1) DENYING MOTION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
AS BARRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)
(ECF No. 2); AND

v.

15
16

TOYOTA OF ESCONDIDO, et al.,

17
18

(2) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION
WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR
FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEE
REQUIRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a)

Defendants.

19
20
21
22

Eric Chatman (“Plaintiff”), currently incarcerated at San Quentin State Prison

23

(“SQSP”) located in San Quentin, California, and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil

24

action in which he claims to have been raped at work at Toyota of Escondido in 1997 or

25

1998. (ECF No. 1, Compl.)

26
27
28

Plaintiff did not pay the civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) at the time
he filed his Complaint; instead he filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”)
1
3:20-cv-00041-CAB-LL

1
2
3

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (ECF No. 2.)
I.

Motion to Proceed IFP
A. Standard of Review

4

“All persons, not just prisoners, may seek IFP status.” Moore v. Maricopa Cnty.

5

Sheriff’s Office, 657 F.3d 890, 892 (9th Cir. 2011). Prisoners, like Plaintiff, however,

6

“face an additional hurdle.” Id. In addition to requiring prisoners to “pay the full

7

amount of a filing fee,” in “increments” as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3)(b),

8

Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2015), the Prison Litigation Reform

9

Act (“PLRA”) amended section 1915 to preclude the privilege to proceed IFP:

10
11
12
13

. . . if [a] prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while
incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or
appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the
grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted, unless the prisoner is under
imminent danger of serious physical injury.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). “This subdivision is commonly known as the ‘three strikes’
provision.” Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1116 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005).
“Pursuant to § 1915(g), a prisoner with three strikes or more cannot proceed IFP.”
Id.; see also Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2007) (hereafter
“Cervantes”) (stating that under the PLRA, “[p]risoners who have repeatedly brought
unsuccessful suits may entirely be barred from IFP status under the three strikes
rule . . . .”). The objective of the PLRA is to further “the congressional goal of reducing
frivolous prisoner litigation in federal court.” Tierney v. Kupers, 128 F.3d 1310, 1312
(9th Cir. 1997). “[S]ection 1915(g)’s cap on prior dismissed claims applies to claims
dismissed both before and after the statute’s effective date.” Id. at 1311.
“Strikes are prior cases or appeals, brought while the plaintiff was a prisoner,
which were dismissed on the ground that they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state
a claim,” Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1116 n.1 (internal quotations omitted), “even if the
2
3:20-cv-00041-CAB-LL

1

district court styles such dismissal as a denial of the prisoner’s application to file the

2

action without prepayment of the full filing fee.” O’Neal v. Price, 531 F.3d 1146, 1153

3

(9th Cir. 2008). Once a prisoner has accumulated three strikes, he is prohibited by

4

section 1915(g) from pursuing any other IFP action in federal court unless he can show

5

he is facing “imminent danger of serious physical injury.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g);

6

Cervantes, 493 F.3d at 1051-52 (noting § 1915(g)’s exception for IFP complaints which

7

“make[] a plausible allegation that the prisoner faced ‘imminent danger of serious

8

physical injury’ at the time of filing.”).

9
10

B. Application to Plaintiff
As an initial matter, the Court has carefully reviewed Plaintiff’s Complaint and has

11

ascertained that it does not contain “plausible allegations” which suggest he “faced

12

‘imminent danger of serious physical injury’ at the time of filing.” Cervantes, 493 F.3d

13

at 1055 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)). Instead, Plaintiff alleges that more than twenty

14

years ago he was raped by his supervisor at the car dealership at which he worked. (See

15

Compl. at 13.)

16

A court “‘may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without

17

the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at

18

issue.’” Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1225 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Bennett v.

19

Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 803 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002)); see also United States ex rel.

20

Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992).

21

The Court takes judicial notice that Plaintiff, while incarcerated, has had at least

22

three prior civil actions in this district alone dismissed on the grounds that they were

23

frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28

24

U.S.C. § 1915(g). They are:

25

1)

Chatman v. Toyota of Escondido, et al., No. 3:17-cv-01853-BAS-JLB, ECF

26

No. 18 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2017) (dismissing action for failing to state a

27

claim and without leave to amend) (strike one);

28

3
3:20-cv-00041-CAB-LL

1

2)

Chatman v. Cush Acura, et al., No. 3:17-cv-01852-WQH-JLB, ECF No. 20

2

(S.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2017) (dismissing action for failing to state a claim and

3

without leave to amend) (strike two);

4

3)

Chatman v. Super 8 Motel, et al., No. 3:17-cv-02517-DMS-JMA, ECF No. 9

5

(S.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2018) (dismissing action for failing to state a claim and

6

without leave to amend) (strike three); and

7

4)

Chatman v. Super 8 Motel Co., et al., No. 3:18-cv-00213-BAS-NLS, ECF

8

No. 6 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 2018) (dismissing action as frivolous and without

9

leave to amend) (strike four).

10

Accordingly, because Plaintiff has, while incarcerated, accumulated at least the

11

three “strikes” permitted pursuant to § 1915(g), and fails to make a “plausible allegation”

12

that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed his

13

Complaint, he is not entitled to proceed IFP in this action. See Cervantes, 493 F.3d at

14

1055; Rodriguez, 169 F.3d at 1180 (finding that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) “does not prevent

15

all prisoners from accessing the courts; it only precludes prisoners with a history of

16

abusing the legal system from continuing to abuse it while enjoying IFP status”); see also

17

Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1231 (9th Cir. 1984) (“[C]ourt permission to proceed

18

IFP is itself a matter of privilege and not right.”).

19

III.

Conclusion and Order

20

For the reasons set forth above, the Court:

21

1)

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 2) as barred by 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g);
2)

DISMISSES this civil action without prejudice for failure to pay the full

statutory and administrative $400 civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a);
3)

CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal from this Order would be frivolous and

therefore, would not be taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); and
4)

DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to close the file.
4
3:20-cv-00041-CAB-LL

1
2

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 10, 2020

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5
3:20-cv-00041-CAB-LL