# Lewis v. Livingston > District Court, N.D. California · May 5, 2021 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10067602 ## Case - **Court:** District Court, N.D. California - **Decided:** May 5, 2021 - **Opinion:** 100trialcourt - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10067602 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - holding that a dismissal 1 (4)Lewis v. Brown (“Brown”), No. 2:09-cv-00195-FCD-DAD (E.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2 2009) (amended complaint dismissed with leave to amend by a magistrate judge 3 because allegations were prolix, vague, conclusory, and violated Rule 8(a - affirming district court’s 3 conclusion that the failure to assert a cognizable claim counted as a strike ## Opinion text 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DARONTA T. LEWIS, Case No. 20-cv-07698-WHO Plaintiff, 8 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY v. 9 PAUPER STATUS IS NOT BARRED 10 DAVID LIVINGSTON, Defendant. 11 12 13 Plaintiff Daronta Lewis, a state prisoner and frequent litigant in federal court, has 14 filed this federal civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 along with a motion to proceed 15 in forma pauperis (IFP) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Lewis is ordered to show cause on or 16 before July 6, 2021 why 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) does not bar pauper status. 17 A prisoner may not bring a civil action or appeal a civil judgment under 28 U.S.C. 18 § 1915 “if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in 19 any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed 20 on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may 21 be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 22 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Relying on the statute’s command that “in no event” may such a 23 prisoner proceed, the Ninth Circuit explained that this bar is triggered by a prisoner’s 24 history of filing frivolous litigation rather than by the merits of the current action. See El- 25 Shaddai v. Zamora, 833 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2016) (emphasis in original). 26 Under the law of this circuit, a plaintiff must be afforded an opportunity to persuade 27 the court that section 1915(g) does not bar pauper status for him. See Andrews v. King, 1 the potential applicability of section 1915(g), by either the district court or the defendants, 2 but also requires the prisoner to bear the ultimate burden of persuasion that section 1915(g) 3 does not bar pauper status for him. Id. Andrews implicitly allows the court to raise sua 4 sponte the section 1915(g) problem, but requires the court to notify the prisoner of the 5 earlier dismissals it considers to support a section 1915(g) dismissal and allow the prisoner 6 an opportunity to be heard on the matter before dismissing the action. Id. A dismissal 7 under section 1915(g) means that a prisoner cannot proceed with his action as a pauper 8 under section 1915(g), but he still may pursue his claims if he pays the full filing fee at the 9 outset of the action. 10 Here, Lewis has had at least three prior prisoner actions or appeals dismissed by a 11 federal court on the grounds that they are frivolous, malicious, or that they failed to state a 12 claim upon which relief may be granted: 13 (1)Lewis v. Ugwueze (“Ugwueze”), No. 1:20-cv-00575-DAD-SKO (E.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 14 2020) (complaint dismissed as duplicative by a district judge upon the 15 recommendation of a magistrate judge, after plaintiff admitted he had intentionally 16 filed a duplicative action); 17 (2)Lewis v. Allio (“Allio”), No. 2:18-cv-00196-JAM-CKD (E.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2018) 18 (complaint dismissed with leave to amend by a magistrate judge1 because plaintiff 19 failed to identify a cognizable claim; suit ultimately dismissed by a district judge for 20 failure to file an amended complaint); 21 (3)Lewis v. Hoagland (“Hoagland”), No. 2:11-cv-01763-GGH (E.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 22 2011) (complaint dismissed with leave to amend by a magistrate judge because 23 plaintiff failed to identify any defendant who was personally involved in the alleged 24 wrongful acts; suit ultimately dismissed by a district judge for failure to file an 25 amended complaint); 26 1 That a magistrate judge, rather than a district judge, issued the order is of no moment. 27 See Hoffmann v. Pulido, 928 F.3d 1147, 1150-51 (9th Cir. 2019) (holding that a dismissal 1 (4)Lewis v. Brown (“Brown”), No. 2:09-cv-00195-FCD-DAD (E.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2 2009) (amended complaint dismissed with leave to amend by a magistrate judge 3 because allegations were prolix, vague, conclusory, and violated Rule 8(a)’s 4 requirement for a “short and plain” statement, and on its face the amended 5 complaint was either “frivolous or fail[ed] to state a claim”; suit ultimately 6 dismissed by a district judge after plaintiff failed to file a second amended 7 complaint); 8 (5)Lewis v. Antonen (“Antonen”), No. 2:08-cv-01764-WBS-KJM (E.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 9 2009) (amended complaint dismissed with leave to amend by a magistrate judge 10 because allegations were prolix, vague, conclusory, and violated Rule 8(a)’s 11 requirement for a “short and plain” statement, and on its face the amended 12 complaint was either “frivolous or fail[ed] to state a claim”; suit ultimately 13 dismissed by a district judge after plaintiff failed to file a second amended 14 complaint); and 15 (6)Lewis v. Neilson (“Neilson”), No. 2:06-cv-01532-FCD-CMK (E.D. Cal. March 27, 16 2007) (complaint dismissed with leave to amend by a magistrate judge because 17 allegations were prolix, vague, conclusory, and violated Rule 8(a)’s requirement for 18 a “short and plain” statement, and on its face the complaint was either “frivolous or 19 fail[ed] to state a claim”; suit ultimately dismissed by a district judge after plaintiff 20 failed to file an amended complaint). 21 Each of these dismissals counts as a strike under the Prison Litigation Reform Act 22 (“PLRA”). As to Ugwueze, the Ninth Circuit has expressly recognized that a duplicative 23 suit is either frivolous or malicious, and thus the dismissal of such a suit qualifies as a 24 strike under the PLRA. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) 25 (recognizing that a duplicative complaint is either frivolous or malicious); LeBlanc v. 26 Asuncion, 699 F. App’x 762 (9th Cir. 2017) (holding that dismissal of duplicative 27 complaint was properly deemed a strike) (citing Cato, 70 F.3d at 1105 n.2). As to Allio, 1 amended complaint after an initial complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. See 2 Belanus v. Clark, 796 F.3d 1021, 1023 (9th Cir. 2015) (affirming district court’s 3 conclusion that the failure to assert a cognizable claim counted as a strike); Harris v. 4 Mangum, 863 F.3d 1133, 1143 (9th Cir. 2017) (where complaint is dismissed with leave to 5 amend, and prisoner fails to amend, the dismissal counts as a strike). As to Hoagland, the 6 failure to name a proper defendant constitutes as a strike, as does the failure to file an 7 amended complaint after an initial complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. See 8 O’Neal v. Price, 531 F.3d 1146, 1148, 1156 (9th Cir. 2008) (affirming district court’s 9 determination that dismissal was a strike where, among other things, the court dismissed 10 for failure to name proper defendant); Harris, 863 F.3d at 1143. As to Brown, Antonen, 11 and Neilson, the failure to correct a vague, conclusory, and prolix complaint after having 12 been given leave to do so constitutes a strike, as does the failure to amend a complaint after 13 having been given leave to do so. See Knapp v. Hogan, 738 F.3d 1106, 1108–09 (9th Cir. 14 2013) (“We hold that repeated and knowing violations of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 8(a)’s ‘short and plain statement’ requirement are strikes as ‘fail[ures] to state a claim,’ . . . 16 when the opportunity to correct the pleadings has been afforded and there has been no 17 modification within a reasonable time.”) (citation omitted); Harris, 863 F.3d at 1143. 18 As noted above, there is a limited exception to the three-strikes rule that applies 19 when a “prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. 20 § 1915(g). That exception does not apply here because any danger that plaintiff may face 21 in custody does not bear a nexus to the wrongs alleged in the Complaint. See Williams v. 22 Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2015) (The danger faced by the plaintiff must be 23 “clearly related to [the] initial complaint.”); see also Pettus v. Morgenthau, 554 F.3d 293, 24 298 (2d Cir. 2009) (“[T]he complaint of a three-strikes litigant must reveal a nexus 25 between the imminent danger it alleges and the claims it asserts, in order for the litigant to 26 qualify for the ‘imminent danger’ exception . . . .”). Here, Lewis expressly and repeatedly 27 states that he is suing because officials at Contra Costa County’s West County Detention 1 || the First Amendment; because during that search officials seized, and have not sufficiently 2 || compensated Lewis for, photos, books of stamps, and a draft complaint, which seizure 3 Lewis claims violates the Fifth Amendment; and because the entire experience caused 4 || Lewis distress, which he claims violates the Eighth Amendment. (See Dkt. No. | 5 || (‘Complaint’) at 3 (stating claims).) Although Lewis claims that defendants were 6 || motivated to retaliate by Lewis’s separate lawsuits regarding physical injuries he suffered 7 || in custody, and recites the allegations of those lawsuits at length (see generally id.), the 8 || actual wrongs complained of in the instant suit are a search, a property seizure, and 9 || emotional distress. None of these wrongs constitute an imminent physical danger to 10 || Lewis. 11 In light of the above strikes, and because Lewis is not threatened with imminent 2 danger of serious physical injury related to the wrongs complained of in this action, the 5 13 || Court now orders him to show cause why IFP status should not be denied and the present S 14 || suit should not be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 3 15 Lewis’s response to this order to show cause is due no later than July 6, 2021. The a 16 || response must clearly be labeled “RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE.” In the 17 || alternative to showing cause why this action should not be dismissed, Lewis may avoid 18 || dismissal by paying the full filing fee by July 6, 2021. 19 Failure to file a response by July 6, 2021, or failure to pay the full filing fee by that 20 || date, will result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice to plaintiff bringing his 21 || claims in a new paid complaint. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: May 5, 2021 . MOQe 24 . ILLIAM H. ORRICK 5 United States District Judge 26 27 28 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10067602. Public record. Not legal advice.