Spearman v. Chiu
- Lee
- 5:24-cv-09480
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Spearman v. Chiu, Judge Lee ordered Spearman to explain why fee waiver should not be denied and the case dismissed.
Reginald Edward Spearman, a detainee who filed a civil-rights action without a lawyer and sought to proceed without paying the filing fee.
What happened
In Spearman v. Chiu, Reginald Edward Spearman filed a civil-rights lawsuit without a lawyer and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court found that he appeared to have at least four prior dismissals that may count as strikes under the federal prisoner-filing law.
The court also found that Spearman’s complaint did not appear to show that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the case. The complaint described an earlier incident in which he was detained at a San Francisco bus stop and taken to a hospital, but the court concluded that this did not appear connected to an immediate danger when the lawsuit was filed.
Judge Eumi K. Lee ordered Spearman to show cause within 28 days why his request to proceed without paying the filing fee should not be denied and why the case should not be dismissed. The court did not make that final decision. Spearman may avoid dismissal by paying the $405 filing fee, and the court stated that this order was not the initial screening of his claims.
The detailed version
- Spearman v. Chiu · No. 5:24-cv-09480
- Lee
- Mar. 17, 2025
Background
Reginald Edward Spearman, who was detained at Sacramento County Jail, filed a civil-rights complaint without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He asked to proceed without paying the filing fee.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has had three or more prior federal cases or appeals dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a claim generally cannot proceed without paying the filing fee. An exception applies if the prisoner was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when the new action was filed.
Prior dismissals and danger exception
The court identified at least four earlier dismissals that appeared to qualify as strikes under § 1915(g):
- A 2023 dismissal for failure to state a claim.
- A 2022 dismissal as frivolous.
- A 2022 dismissal for failure to state a claim, followed by dismissal after Spearman did not file an amended complaint.
- A 2024 dismissal for failure to file an amended complaint.
The court stated that, under Ninth Circuit precedent, each dismissal counted as a strike. It also found that Spearman did not appear to qualify for the immediate-danger exception. His complaint described an October 2024 incident in which he was detained at a San Francisco bus stop and taken involuntarily to a hospital, where a doctor confirmed that he had no issue. Because Spearman filed this action while detained at Sacramento County Jail, the court concluded that the complaint did not appear to show an immediate danger related to that incident when he filed the case.
Order
The court ordered Spearman to show cause within 28 days after service of the order why his request to proceed without paying the filing fee should not be denied and why the action should not be dismissed under § 1915(g). The order gave Spearman an opportunity to address both the prior dismissals and whether he was in immediate danger when he filed the complaint.
The court also stated that Spearman could avoid dismissal by paying the $405 filing fee. It clarified that the order was not the initial screening of the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court warned that failure to respond on time or pay the full filing fee would result in dismissal. The order did not itself deny the fee request or dismiss the action.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.